on
For:
ATTY. JOSE ARTURO C. DE CASTRO
Professor, Special Penal Laws
By:
KRISTINE ABEGAILE R. CLAVIO
KRISHA FABIA
ABRAME-LIONEL GAMALIEL A. OLYMPIA
ALLAN CARLO H. SOLLER
3 rd Year, Section D
Ateneo de Manila University Law School

1.
In a buy-bust operation, prohibited and regulated drugs (shabu and marijuana) were found under the bed, in the inner room of the house of Orlando, while he was sleeping. An information was filed against him for the possession, control and custody of different substances. After arraignment and trial, the court may convict Orlando of: a.
possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No.
6425, as amended, for his possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug,
ONLY; b.
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug, ONLY; c.
possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No.
6425, as amended, for his possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug,
OR violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug; d.
possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No.
6425, as amended, for his possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug,
AND violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug; e.
none of the above. Orlando should be acquitted because the Information is defective.
Possession of one prohibited substance is a separate and distinct crime from possession of another prohibited substance, although in the same place and occasion.
Correct Answer: d
Source:
G.R. No. 139615, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v AMADEO TIRA and CONNIE TIRA, May 28,
2004
One may be charged for possession of marijuana SEPARATE from possession of shabu
(methamphetamine hydrocloride), although seized in the same place and occasion.
The crime of violation of Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for illegal possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana, a prohibited drug, is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. x x x Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. x x x
The Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The appellants should have filed a motion to quash the Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the
Revised Rules of Court before their arraignment. They failed to do so.
Page 2 of 14

Hence, under Rule 120, Section 3: When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each offense.
2.
In a buy-bust operation, prohibited and regulated drug (marijuana) was found in the master’s bedroom, stashed inside the second deck of a wooden cabinet, in Orlando’s house in Abra coowned by him and his brother Irish. At the time of seizure, Orlando was busy negotiating deals with business partners in Maguindanao. An information was filed against him for the possession, control and custody of marijuana. After arraignment and trial, may Orlando be convicted of possession of marijuana under Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No.
6425, as amended? a.
No. Orlando was absent during the search. At that time, he was busy negotiating deals in
Maguindanao. Hence, in no way, could he be in possession of marijuana found inside the master’s bedroom of his house in Abra. b.
No. Orlando was not caught in flagrante delicto possessing the illicit drugs. Hence, he may not be held liable. c.
No. Orlando was merely a co-owner of the house. Hence, he may not be held liable. d.
Yes. The finding of illicit drugs in the house owned by Orlando raised the presumption of knowledge and criminal intent. e.
Yes. The finding of illicit drugs in the house owned by Orlando raised the presumption of knowledge and intent to possess.
Correct Answer: e
Source:
G.R. No. 170837, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v DEXTER TORRES y DELA CRUZ, September
12, 2006.
A person may be convicted for possession of drugs found inside his bedroom EVEN IF at the time of the seizure, he was physically absent therefrom. x x x This crime is mala prohibita, and as such, criminal intent is not an essential element.
However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus
posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession.
Page 3 of 14

Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary.
The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.
3.
In a buy-bust operation, operatives found inside Orlando’s veranda one plant of marijuana in
a flower pot. After arraignment and trial, may Orlando be convicted of an offense? a.
Yes. For violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug; b.
Yes. For violation of Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for cultivation or culture of marijuana, a prohibited drug; c.
No. Orlando was not culturing marijuana under Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. Since there is no plantation to speak of, but only a flower pot; d.
No. Orlando was not the one who planted the marijuana in a flower pot. It was given to him as a gift. Hence, he may not be held liable for cultivating marijuana under Section 16 of Rep.
Act No. 6425, as amended; e.
No. Orlando was in good faith. He had no knowledge of the fact that the plant given was marijuana.
Correct Answer: b
Source:
Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.
Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs need not be in a plantation.
One plant of marijuana in a flower pot is included.
Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof--
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos f1~500,000.00) to Ten million pesos f-l~10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who shall plant, cultivate or culture marijuana, opium poppy or any other plant, regardless of quantity, which is or may hereafter be classified as a dangerous drug or as a source from which any dangerous drug may be manufactured or derived. x x x
Page 4 of 14

4.
In a buy-bust operation, Orlando was accosted selling dried marijuana fruiting tops outside of his residence to Russelle. On the same occasion, found also in his possession were dried
marijuana leaves wrapped in a newspaper. An information was filed against him for the possession, control, and custody as well as illegal sale of marijuana, a prohibited drug. After
arraignment and trial, the court may convict Orlando of: a.
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug, ONLY; b.
violation of Sec 5, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for illegal sale of marijuana, a prohibited drug, ONLY; c.
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug, OR violation of Sec 5, in relation to Section 20, of the law, for illegal sale of marijuana, a prohibited drug; d.
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug, AND violation of Sec 5, in relation to Section 20, of the law, for illegal sale of marijuana, a prohibited drug; e.
none of the above. Orlando should be acquitted because of defective information. There are two (2) separate and distinct crimes in the case at bar: (1) possession and (2) illegal sale of prohibited drugs.
Correct Answer: d
Source: PEOPLE v. CATAN
One may be charged for sale of marijuana and a SEPARATE charge of possession of another gram of marijuana which was not the subject of the sale.
The general rule is that an Information must charge only one offense. However, "when two (2) or more offenses are charged in a single Information and the accused fails to object to it before trial, the Court may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each and every one of them setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each case" (Rule 120, Section 3, 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure). In the proceedings at bar, the records do not show that Appellant seasonably objected to the two offenses charged in a single Information. On the contrary, he merely pleaded not guilty thereto during arraignment.
Under the circumstances, possession of marijuana, other than that which was the object of the sale, having been also charged and proved, his additional conviction therefor can withstand any challenge from the defense.
Page 5 of 14

5.
In a buy-bust operation, Buboy, Gama and Krisha were found to be confederating and conspiring with one another, to commit the following unlawful acts: cultivate, manufacture,
import, sell, maintain a den and possess dangerous drugs. After arraignment and trial, they
may be convicted of: a.
Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts: manufacture, importation, sale, maintenance of den and possession of dangerous drugs; b.
Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts: cultivation, importation, sale, maintenance of den and possession of dangerous drugs; c.
Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts: cultivation, manufacture, sale, maintenance of den and possession of dangerous drugs; d.
Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts: cultivation, manufacture, importation, maintenance of den and possession of dangerous drugs; e.
Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts: cultivation, manufacture, importation, sale, and maintenance of den;
Correct answer: e
Source:
Section 26, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.
The law does not include possession as being the subject of an attempt or conspiracy.
Attempt or Conspiracy.--Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act.
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/ or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/ or controlled precursor and essential chemical; and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
Page 6 of 14

6.
Rigel is an owner of a club called Siemba. He pays several DJ’s to perform in his club every night. Siemba has gained popularity as one of the hippest and “most happening” places in
Manila. Krisha, one of the DJ’s in Siemba, sells cocaine to her clients. She sells it in the club’s restroom and allows her clients to take the drugs there as well. Rigel has repeatedly reprimanded her for this, but he still allows her to perform since she is one of the best DJ’s in town, and her music draws in many people. News spread that Krisha sells cocaine in Siemba’s bathroom. Is Rigel guilty of the maintaining a drug den under the Dangerous Drugs Act? a.
No, Rigel has repeatedly reprimanded Krisha for her actions. This is proof that there was no consent given for the sale of cocaine. Rigel should not be made liable for the crimes of his employees. b.
No, Rigel merely tolerated Krisha’s actions. There was no intent on Rigel’s part to use the club’s bathroom for the use of cocaine. At most, he is merely a protector/ coddler of the drug dealer. c.
Yes, Rigel is guilty because he tolerated the use of cocaine in the club’s bathroom, which has gained reputation as a place where people use drugs. He has a duty to ensure that his drugs are neither sold nor used in the club’s premises. d.
Yes, Rigel is guilty because Siemba’s popularity was due to the sale of cocaine in the bathroom. e.
None of the above.
Correct Answer: c
Source:
G.R. Nos. 136149-51, People v. Walpan Ladjaalam, September 19, 2000.
“A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or are found. Its existence may be proved not only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof of facts and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its general reputation among police officers… That the appellant did not deny the ownership of the house and its extension lent credence to the prosecution’s story.”
He is not a protector. Section 3 (ee) provides the definition for a coddler. A coddler is one who consents to the use of drugs AND uses his influence to protect the drug dealer from the proper authorities. Rigel, in this case, used no influence to protect Krisha from the authorities. His INTENT is immaterial since the Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law.
Page 7 of 14

7.
Who is the operator of the drug den? Krisha or Rigel? a.
Krisha, because she allowed her clients to use the restroom and there was no consent on
Rigel’s part to use the bathroom for that purpose. Furthermore, she was the one who drew the persons into the club’s bathroom. b.
Krisha because the operator of the drug den is necessarily the seller of the prohibited drugs and Rigel never sold cocaine. c.
Rigel, because he is the owner of the club and he consented to the use of the bathroom as a drug den. Krisha was the seller of the drugs. d.
Rigel because he is responsible for Krisha’s actions e.
The bathroom was not used as a drug den. A public place cannot be considered as a drug den.
Correct Answer: c
Source:
Sec.3, par. L; Sec. 3 par.P of of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.
The operator of the drug den is the person who owns or maintains it. The drug den is the place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form.
8.
Krissy is one of Manila’s most famous celebrities. She went to Syemba to mingle and watch DJ
Krisha perform. She began flirting with a boy named Jason. He told her about a gossip that
Krisha was selling cocaine in Syemba’s bathroom. Curious, Krissy visited the bathroom.
Unfortunately, there was a raid and Krissy was arrested along with Krisha and the cocaine users. Is Krissy considered a Visitor of a Drug Den? a.
No. A visitor of the drug den must be aware of the nature of the place and knowingly visit the same. In this case, Krissy was not certain that the bathroom was, in fact, being used as a drug den. She was only knowledgeable of the rumor surrounding it. b.
No, Krissy’s liability cannot be proved with evidence. She could have just wanted to use the bathroom to wash her hands. c.
No. Since the drug den is a public place, nobody can be considered as a visitor of a drug den. d.
Yes. Krissy was told that the bathroom was being used as drug den and she still visited it.
The Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law and therefore, intent is immaterial. e.
Yes. It is difficult to prove that she did not know of the nature of the bathroom.
Correct Answer: a
Page 8 of 14

Source:
Sec.7 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.
A visitor of a drug den is any person who is aware of the nature of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same.
9.
Allan was an undercover police officer in a buy/bust operation to catch Armand Ma-Sayad, a well-known marijuana dealer. He agreed to meet up with Armand at SM Megamall. He then gave the money to Armand but before Armand could give him the marijuana bag, he ran off with the money. The police officers later arrested him and found one marijuana stick in his possession. Can he be charged of violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act? a.
No. there was no intent on his part to sell the marijuana. b.
No. There sale of marijuana was not consummated. At most, he can be charged with possession of dangerous drugs. c.
Yes. There was a valid buy/bust operation in this case. There is a presumption that he wanted to sell the marijuana stick because it was found in his possession and he accepted the money. d.
Yes. There was intent to sell marijuana, as proven by the fact that he agreed to meet up with Allan at SM Megamall. e.
Yes. The fact that Armand ran away with the money and avoided arrest is proof that he was guilty.
Correct Answer: b
Source:
People of the Philippines vs. Salvadro y Agliam
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense; to wit (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established.
In this case, there was no delivery of the thing sold. Therefore, there was no sale of dangerous drugs.
Page 9 of 14

10.
What are essential for the conviction of the accused? A) the marked money, B) the presentation of the informant, C) Proof of Sale D) Presentation in Court of the Substance
Seized. a.
All are essential b.
None are essential c.
Only C and D d.
Only A, B and C e.
Only D.
Correct Answer: c
Sources:
People v. Romeo del Mundo, December 6, 2006; People v. Salvador Dumlao y Agliam
A is not essential, the presentation of the marked money is not essential for the conviction of the accused.
B is not essential.
C and D are Essential. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.
11.
What is/are the drug/s that was/were formerly included in R.A. 6425 which is/are also included in R.A. 9165? a.
Ecstacy b.
Marijuana c.
PMA d.
LSD e.
All of the above
Correct Answer: b
Source:
RA 6425, as amended by R.A. 9165 and ‘Updated Penal Laws’ by Prof. Oscar Pimentel
Page 10 of 14

12.
Is a person charged under any of the provisions of RA 9165, regardless of the imposable penalty, allowed to avail of the provision of plea-bargaining?’ a.
Yes, if the person is over 18 years of age. b.
Yes, if the person is a minor. c.
Yes, if the person is insane. d.
All of the above. e.
None of the above.
Correct Answer: e
Source:
RA 6425, as amended by R.A. 9165 and ‘Updated Penal Laws’ by Prof. Oscar Pimentel
13.
Can a person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under RA 9165, regardless of the penalty imposed, avail of the privilege granted by the Probation law of PD No. 968? a.
Yes, if the person was a first time offender. b.
Yes, if the person was a minor. c.
Yes, even if the person was not minor and not a first time offender. d.
No, except minors who are first time offenders. e.
All of the above.
Correct Answer: d
Source:
RA 6425, as amended by R.A. 9165 and ‘Updated Penal Laws’ by Prof. Oscar Pimentel
14.
Who are the persons required to undergo mandatory drug testing as mandated by RA 9165? a.
Applicants for drivers license, firearms license and permit to carry firearms outside the residence. b.
Officers and members the military, police and other law enforcement agencies c.
Members of paramilitary units and civilian volunteer organization. d.
All except a e.
All except c
Correct answer: e
Source:
RA 6425, as amended by R.A. 9165 and ‘Updated Penal Laws’ by Prof. Oscar Pimentel
Page 11 of 14

15.
What is/are the act/s punishable under RA 9165? a.
Importation of any controlled precursor and essential chemical. b.
Organizing, managing, or acting as a ‘financier’ of any of the illegal activities penalized under
Section 4 of the Law. c.
Acting as protector/coddler of anyone who violates Section 4 of the Law d.
b and c only. e.
c, a and b.
Correct answer: e
Source:
RA 6425, as amended by R.A. 9165 and ‘Updated Penal Laws’ by Prof. Oscar Pimentel
Facts for Questions 16-19
Buboy will have his 18 th birthday in a few weeks time. In preparation for his birthday, he decided to go out to party in a bar somewhere in Makati. He went there with his friends and opted to stay in the VIP area. There, he met Lady Chrissie who offered him beer and after a few bottles, he was offered “E” or Ecstacy. Engulfed by youth’s curiosity, Buboy reluctantly accepted the offer and bought 4 tablets for himself and for his friends. Lady Chrissie, an expert in drug dealings, placed the tablets inside a small container and left it on top of the table where Buboy and his friends were staying. Buboy went to the wash room for a bit when the police suddenly raided the bar, armed with a search warrant. Buboy immediately went back to the VIP area and pocketed the tablets. He rushed back to the washroom to flush it inside the toilet bowl when he was suddenly arrested. Unfortunately, 1 tablet was left on top of the table where Buboy and his friends were staying.
16.
Were the facts sufficient that Lady Chrissie will be held accountable for Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs? a. No, the first element, that there is a consummated transaction or sale, is missing. There could not have been any sale in this case because Lady Chrissie has no intention at all to sell the tablets to Buboy. b. No, the second element, the corpus delicti or the illicit drug, is missing. The tablet left on top of the table was not in the possession of Buboy c. No, the third element, that the buyer and seller can be identified, is missing. Facts are not clear whether Lady Chrissie indeed sold the tablet to Buboy d. Yes, All the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are present. e. Yes, Ecstacy is a prohibited drug under RA9165
Page 12 of 14

Correct Answer: d. Here the illegal sale took place and the intention of the seller is immaterial.
Buboy has dominion and control over the drug after the sale and the identity of the buyer and seller is ascertained
Source:
PEOPLE V DELA CRUZ GR. NO. 177222, OCTOBER 29, 2008
In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense.
17.
Were the facts sufficient that Buboy may be held accountable for the illegal possession of
Dangerous Drugs? a. No, because he was not in possession of a regulated drug. The tablet left on the table was not in his possession. b. No, he was not freely and consciously possessing the drug because he was intoxicated. c. No, because he has no knowledge that the drug is a regulated drug. d. Yes, All the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present. e. Yes, All the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present including criminal intent. e. None of the above.
Correct Answer: d.
He was in possession of the tablet for after the sale was consummated, he has total control over the tablets regardless of the place where it was found. The fact that he bought it reluctantly proves that he has some inkling that he is buying an illegal drug.
Criminal intent is not an essential element since Illegal possession is mala prohibita.
Source:
PEOPLE V TORRES, G.R. NO. 170837, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
To be liable for possession of regulated drugs, under Sec 16 RA 6425, the following elements must concur: a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.
Page 13 of 14

18.
Statement 1: It was necessary for Buboy to have exclusive possession or control over the table where they were staying for conviction
Statement 2: Buboy is deemed to have in possession of the tablet left on the table a. Statement 1 is True while Statement 2 is False. b. Statement 1 is False while Statement 2 is True. c. Both Statements are True. d. Both Statements are False.
Correct Answer: b, exclusive possession or control over the place where the contraband is located is not necessary. Possession may either be actual or constructive. Here, buboy is in constructive possession even though the tablet was left on top of the table since the area was under his dominion and control. They were staying in a VIP area, away from other guests of the bar, thus, he has dominion and control over the table where the tablet was found.
Source: People v Lagman G.R. No 168695, December 8, 2008
19.
Assuming that Lady Chrissie was convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the penalty to be imposed will be: a. Dependent on the quantity of the tablet found b. Dependent on the availing aggravating and mitigating circumstances c. Maximum imposed by law since Buboy was still a minor c. Maximum imposed by law since Lady Chrissie has the essential element of mens rea
Correct answer: c, buboy was still 17 when the incident happened. He went out a few weeks before his 18 th birthday.
Source: PEOPLE V SY, G.R. NO 185284, JUNE 22, 2009
The penalty for the sale of regulated drugs is based, as a rule on the quantity thereof. The exception is where the victim is a minor or where the regulated drug involved is the proximate cause of the death of the victim. In such cases, the maximum penalty prescribed in Sec 15 RA
6425 as amended by RA 7659 i.e. death, shall be imposed, regardless of the quantity of the prohibited drugs involved.
Page 14 of 14