Background
Based on the declining number of cases of Election Related Violent Incidents (ERVI) in the previous national and local elections held last 2007 and 2004, the Philippine National Police (PNP) has again recommended the implementation of the nationwide firearms ban as part of Task Force HOPE 2010 for the upcoming 2010 National and Local Elections. With this, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has issued Resolution 8714, on the 16th of December 2009, providing for the Rules and Regulations on the: Bearing, carrying, or transporting of firearms or other deadly weapons for the May 10, 2010 National and Local Elections.
Legal Basis
- Section 261, para. (p),(q),(r), (s) and (t), Batas Pambansa 881 “Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines”
- Section 32, Republic Act 7166 “An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral Reforms…”
Authority
COMELEC Resolution No 8714 dated 16 December 2009
AFP-PNP Joint Letter Directive 01-2010
Date of Implementation
10 January 2010 – 9 June 2010
General Principles
During the Election Period
- No person shall bear, carry or transport firearms or other deadly weapons in public places including public buildings, streets, parks, and private vehicles or public conveyances, even if licensed to possess and carry the same
- Transport of firearms of those who are engaged in the manufacture, importation, exportation, purchase, sale of firearms, explosives and their spare parts, may, with prior notice to the Commission, be authorized by the Director General of the PNP provided that the firearms, explosives and their spare parts are immediately transported to the Firearms and Explosives Division (FED), Civil Security Group, PNP
Definition of Key Terms
Election Period
10 January 2010 to 9 June 2010
(COMELEC Resolution No 8646)
Firearm
“firearm” as defined in existing laws, rules and regulations
includes airgun, airsoft guns, and their replica/imitation in whatever form that can cause an ordinary person to believe that they are real
Deadly Weapon
includes bladed instrument, hand grenades or other explosives, except pyrotechnics
Suspension of Permit to Carry Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFOR)
All previously issued PTCFOR are suspended throughout the election period (10 January 2010 – 9 June 2010)
Suspension of Issuance of Firearms Licenses
- PNP is directed to suspend the issuance of firearms licenses during the election period
- Processing and approval of new firearms license, including renewal of license, may continue on the condition that the new license and firearm shall be kept in deposit with the Firearms and Explosives Division of the PNP until after the election period
Who may bear firearms
- Regular members/officers of the PNP, AFP, and other Law Enforcement Agencies,* provided that he/she is:
In the regular plantilla of the said agencies
Wearing the agency-prescribed uniform showing clearly his/her identification
Duly licensed to possess firearm and to carry the same by means of a valid mission order/ letter order
In the actual performance of official law enforcement duty, or in going to or returning from his residence/barracks or official station
- Member of privately owned or operated security, investigative, protective or intelligence agencies duly authorized by PNP, provided that:
He/She is wearing the agency-prescribed uniform with agency-issued ID
He/She is In the actual performance of duty at his/her specified place/area of duty
The issued firearms shall be left/deposited in respective posts when off duty
Law Enforcement Agencies include:
National Bureau of Prisons, Provincial and City Jails
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
Customs Enforcement and Security and Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service of the Bureau of Customs
Port Police Department, Philippine Ports Authority
Philippine Economic Zone Authority Police Force
Government Guard Forces
Law Enforcement and Investigation agents of the Bureau of Immigration
Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) Police Force
Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) Police Force
Organic Personnel of the Law Enforcement Service of the Land Transportation Office (LTO)
Philippine Coast Guard
Cebu Port Authority (CPA) Police Force
Agents of ISOG of the Witness Protection Program
Members of the Videogram Regulatory Board performing law enforcement functions
Members of the Security Investigation and Transport Department (STTD), Cash Department (CD), and Office of Special Investigation (OSI), Branch Operations and Department of General Services of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms (OSAA) of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the OSAA-certified/designated senators/congressmen’s security escorts
Postal Inspectors, Investigators, Intelligence Officers and members of the Inspection Service of the Philippine Postal Corporation
Election officers, Provincial Election Supervisors, Regional Attorneys, Assistant Regional Election Directors, Regional Election Directors, Directors III and IV, Lawyers in the Main Office of the COMELEC and Members of the Commission
Law Enforcement Section, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Tourist Security Division, Department of Tourism
Intelligence Division of the Central Management Information Office, Department of Finance
Inspection and Monitoring Service, National Police Commission
Personnel of the Special Action and Investigation Division, Forest Officers defined under PD 705 and DENR DAO No. 1997-32, Forest/Park Rangers, Wildlife Officers and all forest and law enforcement officers of the DENR
Intelligence and Security, Office of the Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
Philippine Center for Transnational Crime
National Bureau of Investigation
Presidential Anti-Smuggling Group
Field Officers of the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, Department of Agriculture
Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGU)
Presidential Security Group
Bureau of Fire Protection
Treasurer pf the Philippines, Deputy Treasurers, and members of the Internal Security Division of the Bureau of Treasury
Security Personnel of accredited members of the foreign diplomatic corps and establishments as governed by international law
Submission of Certified List of Names of AFP, PNP and other Law Enforcement Personnel
- Heads of offices mentioned shall submit to the Committee on the Ban on Firearms and Security Personnel (CBFSP) the list of names of the personnel of the agency, with the description of their firearms, not later by 29 December 2009
- Personnel of agencies mentioned shall only be considered authorized to bear, carry or transport firearms only upon receipt by the CBSFP of the certified list
Apprehension of Security Personnel of Candidates
- Firearms of apprehended persons performing duties as security to candidates shall be immediately subjected to verification through the Firearms Verification Hotline, operated by FED-PNP.
- During the Verification, the local PNP unit shall provide temporary security detail to candidates secured by apprehended persons.
- Upon confirmation of the legitimacy of the security detail, he/she shall immediately be restored to his/her former duty
Enforcement
- All persons in civilian attire carrying firearms shall be presumed unauthorized to carry the same and subject for arrest and investigation
- Captured, confiscated, surrendered, deposited, abandoned and forfeited firearms shall be initially deposited to the nearest police station/unit for proper documentation, accounting and proper disposition
- Joint PNP-AFP teams shall be organized to conduct intensified implementation of OPLAN “SITA” (Police Frisking Operation) and OPLAN “BAKAL” (Weapons Search) especially targeting political candidates maintaining Private Armed Groups
Statistics on Election Related Violent Incidents
Observations and Questions
- In comparison to a similar resolution issued for the 2007 Elections (COMELEC Resolution No 7764), Resolution 8714 specifically delineated which personnel/agencies, in the performance of their duties, are exempted from the firearms ban
- Resolution 8714 limits the firearms ban exemption to members included in the regular plantilla of personnel of the agencies mentioned.
Replicas/imitations of real firearms, including airguns and airsoft guns are now treated as real firearms for the purposes of the firearms ban. Hence, they are prohibited and subject to confiscation if apprehended carrying or possessing the same.
- Deadly weapons, as defined in the resolution, do not include objects that, although lacking a blade/edged component, may equally induce fear or harm to the populace.
- The rules and regulations issued lacks concrete measures in the conduct and apprehension of Private Armed Groups of politicians and candidates.
- The inclusion of the Civilian Armed Forces Geographical Units (CAFGU) in the exemption list presents a dilemma, as far as election violence is concerned. Although CAFGU units serve as vital force multipliers for Internal Security Operations, their loyalties are questionable as some, if not most of these units are under the influence of local politicians, who may utilize the said forces as their own Private Armed Group, as in the case of the Ampatuans in Maguindanao.
- The condition on the wearing of uniforms of personnel while carrying or in possession of firearms in the performance of their duty ensures the public that only authorized government personnel possess firearms during the election period. However, the said condition may not be practicable for government personnel performing authorized covert military/law enforcement functions.
- In cases when the anonymity or the withholding of the identities of agents and other confidential personnel (ISAFP, NICA) are necessary for the purposes of their duty and protection, what are the measures by which COMELEC can assure that such classified information are protected?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
HOUSE BILL NO. 3296
HOUSE BILL NO. 3296: An Act Creating the Tawi-Tawi Special Economic Zone and Free Trade Zone Act of 2007
Background:
A Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is a geographical region that has economic laws that are more liberal than a country's typical economic laws. The category 'SEZ' covers a broad range of more specific zone types, including Free Trade Zones (FTZ), Export Processing Zones (EPZ), Free Zones (FZ), Industrial Estates (IE), Free Ports, Urban Enterprise Zones and others. Usually the goal of a structure is to increase foreign direct investment by foreign investors, typically an international business or a multinational corporation (MNC). A single SEZ can contain multiple 'specific' zones within its boundaries. The most prominent example of this layered approach in the country is the Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
Philippine economic zones (ecozones) are collections of industries, brought together geographically for the purpose of promoting economic development. Although designed to operate separately from the political and economic milieu of surrounding communities. The Philippine economic zones do in fact interact with their neighbors. At present, there are 41 private-owned economic zones and four (4) government owned economic zones in the Philippines. Of the 41 private economic zones, the biggest exporter is Gateway Business Park in General Trias, Cavite and the second biggest private ecozone is Laguna Technopark Inc. The four governmentally owned are Cavite Economic Zone, Bataan Economic Zone, Mactan Economic Zone and Baguio City Economic Zone. Thus it is a useful act for the growth of economic zone of the country.
House Bill No. 3296:
Rep. Hermilando I. Manadanas of the Second District of Batangas introduced the HB3296 known shortly as the Tawi-Tawi Special Economic Zone and Free Trade Zone Act if 2007, or an Act Creating the Tawi-Tawi Special Economic and Free Trade Zone, Providing Incentives therefore and Establishing an International Transshipment Port at Sibutu Passage.
Potential Impacts of HB3296:
Political
- According to the UN Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Philippines has adopted the National Marine Policy which seeks to emphasize the country’s status as an archipelago.
- Under this Archipelagic Doctine, provided in Article 1, 1987 Constitution, the Philippine’s territory includes its Exclusive Zone of 200 nm (Nautical Miles) from its base/shoreline.
- The tolerance of the Philippine government to allow the foreign vessels through Sibutu Strait is in violation of Archipelagic doctrine and that of the territorial integrity of the Philippines as a sovereign state.
- Tawi-Tawi is located at the heart of Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East Asian Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA) Polygon.
- Tawi-Tawi’s geographical location is highly strategic to the defense of the Philippines in our Southern perimeter. Tawi-Tawi is the first line of defense in the south in case of foreign aggression. It will check and minimize if not eradicate, through a tight security system, the nefarious trade, counter trade, smuggling, poaching, illegal immigrant, kidnapping and even piracy and terrorism in the area, and secure our sovereignty and preserve our territorial integrity as an archipelagic state. The measures calls for a full equipped special unit consisting of Police, Naval, Air. Amy land forces under a Commander to enforce the mandate of the act, a set-up that is designed to assure us that our frontiers in this part of Mindanao will not again be encroached upon.
Diplomatic
- Historically, for 125 years now, many foreign vessels have been freely using the archipelagic sea-lanes of the province of Tawi-Tawi without benefiting the government of the Philippines. Thus, the use of said sea-lanes started in 1880, two years after the Sultan of Sulu leased Sabah to a British Commercial Syndicate.
- The Protocol of 1887 among Germany, the Netherlands and great Britain reaffirmed the use of sea-lanes in 1885, but neither the Sultan of Sulu nor the Spanish insular government in Manila was consulted, hence, by any measure, the act was pure and simple usurpation by foreign powers to the exclusion of the Philippines, but by the right and by international law, however, it is the Philippines that has the sole and exclusive prerogative of determining whose vessels have access to the said passages, and under what terms and conditions may such access be granted.
- The National Mapping Resources Information Authority (NAMRIA) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has already succeeded in claiming three (3) sea lanes of the Philippines as International sea lanes, including the Balabak Strait of Palawan, the Surigao Strait, and the Bongao in the province of Tawi-Tawi as their safest route to and from mainland Asia.
- The Philippines lacks the requisite potency in safeguarding its wide archipelagic dominion that stretches from North to South up to the northern rim of Celebes Sea; in some developed countries, like Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, China, Korea and Australia the problem of waste disposal by foreign vessels has become alarming.
Economic
- Foreign vessels are just freely using our sea-lanes in Tawi-Tawi and also making them as a dumping site.
- Since the country is saddled with massive foreign debt, the people of Tawi-Tawi are faced with the challenge of harnessing their creativity and initiative and continually exploring for new possibilities to pull our nation out of the rubble of economic misery.
- Under the long term-plan, the fees of taxes collected therefrom will be used for the establishment or the construction of the Tawi-Tawi International Transshipment Port or an Export Processing Zone which would attract investments in Tawi-Tawi and thus provide employment to our people and the opening up of extensive trade with Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, China, and Australia.
- The collected taxes will be used also for the improvement of the surroundings of the Port facilities and for the operational expenses of the authority, with a reasonable percentage of the proceeds of collection going to the National Government in Manila, and to the province of Tawi-Tawi, in order to help achieve the economic status which it deserves.
Socio-Cultural
- The province of Tawi-Tawi, can showcase its customs, traditions, scenic and touristic views to local and foreign tourists and investors. This may prove to be a take-off point for newly found developmental initiatives that may contribute to the progressive course of our national destiny.
- The Mindanao State University (MSU) at Tawi-Tawi, particularly the College of Oceanographic Studies and Fisheries, will be allocated funds for the specific research and studies of our marine natural resources such as seaweeds, sea cucumber, fish corals, and other marine life.
Background:
A Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is a geographical region that has economic laws that are more liberal than a country's typical economic laws. The category 'SEZ' covers a broad range of more specific zone types, including Free Trade Zones (FTZ), Export Processing Zones (EPZ), Free Zones (FZ), Industrial Estates (IE), Free Ports, Urban Enterprise Zones and others. Usually the goal of a structure is to increase foreign direct investment by foreign investors, typically an international business or a multinational corporation (MNC). A single SEZ can contain multiple 'specific' zones within its boundaries. The most prominent example of this layered approach in the country is the Subic Bay Freeport Zone.
Philippine economic zones (ecozones) are collections of industries, brought together geographically for the purpose of promoting economic development. Although designed to operate separately from the political and economic milieu of surrounding communities. The Philippine economic zones do in fact interact with their neighbors. At present, there are 41 private-owned economic zones and four (4) government owned economic zones in the Philippines. Of the 41 private economic zones, the biggest exporter is Gateway Business Park in General Trias, Cavite and the second biggest private ecozone is Laguna Technopark Inc. The four governmentally owned are Cavite Economic Zone, Bataan Economic Zone, Mactan Economic Zone and Baguio City Economic Zone. Thus it is a useful act for the growth of economic zone of the country.
House Bill No. 3296:
Rep. Hermilando I. Manadanas of the Second District of Batangas introduced the HB3296 known shortly as the Tawi-Tawi Special Economic Zone and Free Trade Zone Act if 2007, or an Act Creating the Tawi-Tawi Special Economic and Free Trade Zone, Providing Incentives therefore and Establishing an International Transshipment Port at Sibutu Passage.
Potential Impacts of HB3296:
Political
- According to the UN Convention on the law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Philippines has adopted the National Marine Policy which seeks to emphasize the country’s status as an archipelago.
- Under this Archipelagic Doctine, provided in Article 1, 1987 Constitution, the Philippine’s territory includes its Exclusive Zone of 200 nm (Nautical Miles) from its base/shoreline.
- The tolerance of the Philippine government to allow the foreign vessels through Sibutu Strait is in violation of Archipelagic doctrine and that of the territorial integrity of the Philippines as a sovereign state.
- Tawi-Tawi is located at the heart of Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines East Asian Growth Area (BIMP-EAGA) Polygon.
- Tawi-Tawi’s geographical location is highly strategic to the defense of the Philippines in our Southern perimeter. Tawi-Tawi is the first line of defense in the south in case of foreign aggression. It will check and minimize if not eradicate, through a tight security system, the nefarious trade, counter trade, smuggling, poaching, illegal immigrant, kidnapping and even piracy and terrorism in the area, and secure our sovereignty and preserve our territorial integrity as an archipelagic state. The measures calls for a full equipped special unit consisting of Police, Naval, Air. Amy land forces under a Commander to enforce the mandate of the act, a set-up that is designed to assure us that our frontiers in this part of Mindanao will not again be encroached upon.
Diplomatic
- Historically, for 125 years now, many foreign vessels have been freely using the archipelagic sea-lanes of the province of Tawi-Tawi without benefiting the government of the Philippines. Thus, the use of said sea-lanes started in 1880, two years after the Sultan of Sulu leased Sabah to a British Commercial Syndicate.
- The Protocol of 1887 among Germany, the Netherlands and great Britain reaffirmed the use of sea-lanes in 1885, but neither the Sultan of Sulu nor the Spanish insular government in Manila was consulted, hence, by any measure, the act was pure and simple usurpation by foreign powers to the exclusion of the Philippines, but by the right and by international law, however, it is the Philippines that has the sole and exclusive prerogative of determining whose vessels have access to the said passages, and under what terms and conditions may such access be granted.
- The National Mapping Resources Information Authority (NAMRIA) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has already succeeded in claiming three (3) sea lanes of the Philippines as International sea lanes, including the Balabak Strait of Palawan, the Surigao Strait, and the Bongao in the province of Tawi-Tawi as their safest route to and from mainland Asia.
- The Philippines lacks the requisite potency in safeguarding its wide archipelagic dominion that stretches from North to South up to the northern rim of Celebes Sea; in some developed countries, like Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, China, Korea and Australia the problem of waste disposal by foreign vessels has become alarming.
Economic
- Foreign vessels are just freely using our sea-lanes in Tawi-Tawi and also making them as a dumping site.
- Since the country is saddled with massive foreign debt, the people of Tawi-Tawi are faced with the challenge of harnessing their creativity and initiative and continually exploring for new possibilities to pull our nation out of the rubble of economic misery.
- Under the long term-plan, the fees of taxes collected therefrom will be used for the establishment or the construction of the Tawi-Tawi International Transshipment Port or an Export Processing Zone which would attract investments in Tawi-Tawi and thus provide employment to our people and the opening up of extensive trade with Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, China, and Australia.
- The collected taxes will be used also for the improvement of the surroundings of the Port facilities and for the operational expenses of the authority, with a reasonable percentage of the proceeds of collection going to the National Government in Manila, and to the province of Tawi-Tawi, in order to help achieve the economic status which it deserves.
Socio-Cultural
- The province of Tawi-Tawi, can showcase its customs, traditions, scenic and touristic views to local and foreign tourists and investors. This may prove to be a take-off point for newly found developmental initiatives that may contribute to the progressive course of our national destiny.
- The Mindanao State University (MSU) at Tawi-Tawi, particularly the College of Oceanographic Studies and Fisheries, will be allocated funds for the specific research and studies of our marine natural resources such as seaweeds, sea cucumber, fish corals, and other marine life.
Monday, January 18, 2010
People vs Medel Tangliben
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
People vs Medel Tangliben
G.R. No. L-63630
April 6, 1990
Facts:
On or about the March 2, 1982, in the municipality of San Fernando, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, accused MEDEL TANGLIBEN y BERNARDINO, knowing fully well that Marijuana is a prohibited drug; have in his possession, control and custody one (1) bag of dried marijuana leaves with an approximate weight of one (1) kilo. He transported to Olongapo City, without authority of law to do so.
In his defense, the married accused with one child, declared that he was able to meet Nena Ballon at 6:00 o'clock in the evening and he stayed in Nena's house up to 8:00 o'clock because he had a drinking spree with Nena's son. He failed to catch the 8:00 o'clock trip to Manila from Olongapo City but was able to take the bus only by 9:00 o'clock that evening on a Victory Liner Bus, already tipsy, he did not notice that the bus was only bound for San Fernando, Pampanga.
Upon alighting at the Victory Liner Compound at San Fernando, Pampanga he crossed the street to wait for a bus going to Manila. While awaiting for a bus, a man whom he came to know later as Patrolman Punzalan, approached him and asked him if he has any residence certificate. When he took out his wallet, Pat. Punzalan got the wallet and took all the money inside the wallet amounting to P545.00 and told him he'll be taken to the municipal building for verification as he may be an NPA member. In the police station, Pat. Silverio Quevedo took the marijuana from him, promised that it shall be returned to him but that it was never returned to him; thereafter, he was placed under detention and was told to him that he is being charged with possession of marijuana and if he would like to be bailed out. When his wife visited him, he told her that Patrolman Silverio Quevedo took away all his money and not to complain anymore since would be useless.
Issue:
Whether the accused violated Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended?
Held:
No. The appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Third Judicial Region at San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 41, found appellant Tangliben guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and sentencing him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to pay the costs.
Limited Defense
The appellant chose to limit his defense to his own testimony. He could have availed himself through compulsory court processes of several witnesses to buttress his defense. Since not one other witness was presented nor was any justification for the non-appearance given, the inadequacy of his lone and uncorroborated testimony remains. It cannot prevail vis-a-vis the positive testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses.
Evidence
The dried marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused weighs one (1) kilo, more or less. The intent to transport the same is clear from the testimony of Pat. Silverio Quevedo who declared, among other things, that when he confronted the accused that night, the latter told him that he (accused) is bringing the marijuana leaves to Olongapo City. Moreover, considering the quantity of the marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused and the place he was arrested which is at San Fernando, Pampanga, a place where the accused is not residing, it can be said that the intent to transport the marijuana leaves has been clearly established.
Conviction of a crime with an extremely severe penalty must be based on evidence which is clearer and more convincing than the inferences in this case. What was therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt is not his intent to transport the marijuana leaves but his actual session.
People vs Medel Tangliben
G.R. No. L-63630
April 6, 1990
Facts:
On or about the March 2, 1982, in the municipality of San Fernando, Province of Pampanga, Philippines, accused MEDEL TANGLIBEN y BERNARDINO, knowing fully well that Marijuana is a prohibited drug; have in his possession, control and custody one (1) bag of dried marijuana leaves with an approximate weight of one (1) kilo. He transported to Olongapo City, without authority of law to do so.
In his defense, the married accused with one child, declared that he was able to meet Nena Ballon at 6:00 o'clock in the evening and he stayed in Nena's house up to 8:00 o'clock because he had a drinking spree with Nena's son. He failed to catch the 8:00 o'clock trip to Manila from Olongapo City but was able to take the bus only by 9:00 o'clock that evening on a Victory Liner Bus, already tipsy, he did not notice that the bus was only bound for San Fernando, Pampanga.
Upon alighting at the Victory Liner Compound at San Fernando, Pampanga he crossed the street to wait for a bus going to Manila. While awaiting for a bus, a man whom he came to know later as Patrolman Punzalan, approached him and asked him if he has any residence certificate. When he took out his wallet, Pat. Punzalan got the wallet and took all the money inside the wallet amounting to P545.00 and told him he'll be taken to the municipal building for verification as he may be an NPA member. In the police station, Pat. Silverio Quevedo took the marijuana from him, promised that it shall be returned to him but that it was never returned to him; thereafter, he was placed under detention and was told to him that he is being charged with possession of marijuana and if he would like to be bailed out. When his wife visited him, he told her that Patrolman Silverio Quevedo took away all his money and not to complain anymore since would be useless.
Issue:
Whether the accused violated Section 4, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended?
Held:
No. The appeal from the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Third Judicial Region at San Fernando, Pampanga, Branch 41, found appellant Tangliben guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 as amended) and sentencing him to life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P20,000 and to pay the costs.
Limited Defense
The appellant chose to limit his defense to his own testimony. He could have availed himself through compulsory court processes of several witnesses to buttress his defense. Since not one other witness was presented nor was any justification for the non-appearance given, the inadequacy of his lone and uncorroborated testimony remains. It cannot prevail vis-a-vis the positive testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses.
Evidence
The dried marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused weighs one (1) kilo, more or less. The intent to transport the same is clear from the testimony of Pat. Silverio Quevedo who declared, among other things, that when he confronted the accused that night, the latter told him that he (accused) is bringing the marijuana leaves to Olongapo City. Moreover, considering the quantity of the marijuana leaves found in the possession of the accused and the place he was arrested which is at San Fernando, Pampanga, a place where the accused is not residing, it can be said that the intent to transport the marijuana leaves has been clearly established.
Conviction of a crime with an extremely severe penalty must be based on evidence which is clearer and more convincing than the inferences in this case. What was therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt is not his intent to transport the marijuana leaves but his actual session.
People vs Anita Claudio
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
People vs Anita Claudio
G.R. No. 72564
April 15, 1988
Facts:
On or about 21 July 1981, in the Olongapo City, Philippines, the above-named ACCUSED without being lawfully authorized, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly transport 1.1 kilos of Marijuana dried leaves, which are prohibited drugs for the purpose of selling the same from Baguio City to Olongapo City.
Issues:
a)Whether or not the accused is also liable Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425 aside from Sec. 8, Art. II of the same Act?
b)Whether warrantless search, seizure, and apprehension is unlawful under Rule 126, Sec.12?
Held:
Yes. In the case at bar, alibi does not deserve much credit as it was established only by the accused herself. Moreover, it is a well-established rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive testimony. The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.
Sec. 4, Art II of R.A. 5425
The provision provides the Sale, Administration, Delivery Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs where the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. Although the accused contends that she may not be convicted of this provision, the court held that contention is without merit. A closer perusal of the subject provision shows that it is not only delivery which is penalized but also the sale, administration, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs. Claudio was caught transporting 1.1 kilos of marijuana, thus the lower court did not err in finding her guilty of violating Sec. 4.
As held in the case of People v. Toledo, (140 SCRA 259, 267) "the possession of such considerable quantity as three plastic bags of marijuana leaves and seeds coupled with the fact that he is not a user of prohibited drugs cannot indicate anything except the intention of the accused to sell, distribute and deliver said marijuana.
Rule 126, Sec. 12
The provision provides the Search incident to lawful arrest where a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant in paragraph (12a). Thus, appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel Obiña did not need a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was caught in flagrante delicto. The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful. (Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509). Therefore, there was no infirmity in the seizure of the 1.1 kilos of marijuana.
People vs Anita Claudio
G.R. No. 72564
April 15, 1988
Facts:
On or about 21 July 1981, in the Olongapo City, Philippines, the above-named ACCUSED without being lawfully authorized, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly transport 1.1 kilos of Marijuana dried leaves, which are prohibited drugs for the purpose of selling the same from Baguio City to Olongapo City.
Issues:
a)Whether or not the accused is also liable Sec. 4, Art. II of R.A. 6425 aside from Sec. 8, Art. II of the same Act?
b)Whether warrantless search, seizure, and apprehension is unlawful under Rule 126, Sec.12?
Held:
Yes. In the case at bar, alibi does not deserve much credit as it was established only by the accused herself. Moreover, it is a well-established rule that alibi cannot prevail over positive testimony. The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.
Sec. 4, Art II of R.A. 5425
The provision provides the Sale, Administration, Delivery Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited Drugs where the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty thousand to thirty thousand pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, administer, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any prohibited drug, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. Although the accused contends that she may not be convicted of this provision, the court held that contention is without merit. A closer perusal of the subject provision shows that it is not only delivery which is penalized but also the sale, administration, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs. Claudio was caught transporting 1.1 kilos of marijuana, thus the lower court did not err in finding her guilty of violating Sec. 4.
As held in the case of People v. Toledo, (140 SCRA 259, 267) "the possession of such considerable quantity as three plastic bags of marijuana leaves and seeds coupled with the fact that he is not a user of prohibited drugs cannot indicate anything except the intention of the accused to sell, distribute and deliver said marijuana.
Rule 126, Sec. 12
The provision provides the Search incident to lawful arrest where a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant in paragraph (12a). Thus, appellant Claudio was caught transporting prohibited drugs. Pat. Daniel Obiña did not need a warrant to arrest Claudio as the latter was caught in flagrante delicto. The warrantless search being an incident to a lawful arrest is in itself lawful. (Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509). Therefore, there was no infirmity in the seizure of the 1.1 kilos of marijuana.
Prudente vs Executive Judge Dayrit
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
Prudente vs Executive Judge Dayrit
G.R. No. 82870
December 14, 1989
Facts:
The case is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated 9 March 1988 which denied Dr. Nemesis E. Prudente’s (PUP President) motion to quash Search Warrant No. 87-14, as well as his order dated 20 April 1988 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the earlier order.
It appears that on 31 October 1987, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw, Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Western Police District (WPD) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, presided over by respondent Judge Abelardo Dayrit, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, an application for the issuance of a search warrant, docketed therein as SEARCH WARRANT NO. 87-14, for VIOLATION OF PD NO. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.) entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Dr. Nemesis E. Prudente, Defendant." In his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw alleged the following: that in PUP he has in his control or possession firearms, explosives handgrenades and ammunition which are illegally possessed or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. That the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fact, and therefore, believes that a Search Warrant should be issued to enable the undersigned or any agent of the law to take possession and bring to the Honorable Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the application for Search Warrant No. 87-14 filed is legal against the defendant in violation of PD No. 1866?
Held:
No. The questioned orders dated 9 March 1988 and 20 April 1988 as well as Search Warrant No. 87-14 were annulled and set aside.
Search Warrant
In Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance, the Court laid the following test in determining whether the allegations in an application for search warrant or in a supporting deposition, are based on personal knowledge or not, stating that true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant be held liable for damage caused. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant for search warrant, and/or his witnesses, not of the facts merely reported by a person whom one considers to be reliable.
Petitioner also assails the validity of the search warrant on the ground that it failed to particularly describe the place to be searched, contending that there were several rooms at the ground floor and the second floor of the PUP.
In the present case, however, the application for search warrant was captioned: "For Violation of PD No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.) While the said decree punishes several offenses, the alleged violation in this case was, qualified by the phrase "illegal possession of firearms, etc." As explained by respondent Judge, the term "etc." referred to ammunitions and explosives. In other words, the search warrant was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and explosives.
Probable Cause
Manifestly, in the case at bar, the evidence failed to show the existence of probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant. The Court also notes post facto that the search in question yielded, no armalites, handguns, pistols, assorted weapons or ammunitions as stated in the application for search warrant, the supporting deposition, and the search warrant the supporting hand grenades were itself only three (3) live fragmentation found in the searched premises of the PUP, according to the affidavit of an alleged member of the searching party.
The Court avails of this decision to reiterate the strict requirements for determination of "probable cause" in the valid issuance of a search warrant, as enunciated in earlier cases. True, these requirements are stringent but the purpose is to assure that the constitutional right of the individual against unreasonable search and seizure shall remain both meaningful and effective.
Under Oath
Finally, in connection with the petitioner's contention that the failure of the applicant to state, under oath, the urgent need for the issuance of the search warrant, his application having been filed on a Saturday, rendered the questioned warrant invalid for being violative of this Court's Circular No. 19, dated 14 August 1987, which reads: That applications filed after office hours, during Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall likewise be taken cognizance of and acted upon by any judge of the court having jurisdiction of the place to be searched, but in such cases the applicant shall certify and state the facts under oath, to the satisfaction of the judge, that the issuance is urgent.
Prudente vs Executive Judge Dayrit
G.R. No. 82870
December 14, 1989
Facts:
The case is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated 9 March 1988 which denied Dr. Nemesis E. Prudente’s (PUP President) motion to quash Search Warrant No. 87-14, as well as his order dated 20 April 1988 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the earlier order.
It appears that on 31 October 1987, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw, Chief of the Intelligence Special Action Division (ISAD) of the Western Police District (WPD) filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, presided over by respondent Judge Abelardo Dayrit, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, an application for the issuance of a search warrant, docketed therein as SEARCH WARRANT NO. 87-14, for VIOLATION OF PD NO. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.) entitled "People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, versus Dr. Nemesis E. Prudente, Defendant." In his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw alleged the following: that in PUP he has in his control or possession firearms, explosives handgrenades and ammunition which are illegally possessed or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. That the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fact, and therefore, believes that a Search Warrant should be issued to enable the undersigned or any agent of the law to take possession and bring to the Honorable Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the application for Search Warrant No. 87-14 filed is legal against the defendant in violation of PD No. 1866?
Held:
No. The questioned orders dated 9 March 1988 and 20 April 1988 as well as Search Warrant No. 87-14 were annulled and set aside.
Search Warrant
In Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance, the Court laid the following test in determining whether the allegations in an application for search warrant or in a supporting deposition, are based on personal knowledge or not, stating that true test of sufficiency of a deposition or affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and the affiant be held liable for damage caused. The oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant for search warrant, and/or his witnesses, not of the facts merely reported by a person whom one considers to be reliable.
Petitioner also assails the validity of the search warrant on the ground that it failed to particularly describe the place to be searched, contending that there were several rooms at the ground floor and the second floor of the PUP.
In the present case, however, the application for search warrant was captioned: "For Violation of PD No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc.) While the said decree punishes several offenses, the alleged violation in this case was, qualified by the phrase "illegal possession of firearms, etc." As explained by respondent Judge, the term "etc." referred to ammunitions and explosives. In other words, the search warrant was issued for the specific offense of illegal possession of firearms and explosives.
Probable Cause
Manifestly, in the case at bar, the evidence failed to show the existence of probable cause to justify the issuance of the search warrant. The Court also notes post facto that the search in question yielded, no armalites, handguns, pistols, assorted weapons or ammunitions as stated in the application for search warrant, the supporting deposition, and the search warrant the supporting hand grenades were itself only three (3) live fragmentation found in the searched premises of the PUP, according to the affidavit of an alleged member of the searching party.
The Court avails of this decision to reiterate the strict requirements for determination of "probable cause" in the valid issuance of a search warrant, as enunciated in earlier cases. True, these requirements are stringent but the purpose is to assure that the constitutional right of the individual against unreasonable search and seizure shall remain both meaningful and effective.
Under Oath
Finally, in connection with the petitioner's contention that the failure of the applicant to state, under oath, the urgent need for the issuance of the search warrant, his application having been filed on a Saturday, rendered the questioned warrant invalid for being violative of this Court's Circular No. 19, dated 14 August 1987, which reads: That applications filed after office hours, during Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall likewise be taken cognizance of and acted upon by any judge of the court having jurisdiction of the place to be searched, but in such cases the applicant shall certify and state the facts under oath, to the satisfaction of the judge, that the issuance is urgent.
US vs Samonte
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
US vs Samonte
G.R. No. 6740
September 1, 1911
Crispin Oben, for appellant.
Attorney-General Villamor, for appellee.
Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.
Facts:
It is alleged in this case that on the 24h day of August, 1909, while Epifania Abadines, a deaf-mute, was alone in her stepfather's house, the accused entered the same, and, seizing her, threw her upon the floor, and by means of force and violence, and in spite of her efforts and obligations, had sexually communication with her.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Laguna, the Hon. Vicente Jocson presiding, convicting the accused of the crime of rape and sentencing him to fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, to the accessories provided by law, to pay to the person violated the sum of P500, to recognize and maintain the child, if any there should be, and to pay the costs of the action.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant has raped the appellee?
Held:
No. Upon the whole case there is a clear doubt that the evidence establishes the guilt of the accused. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and acquit the accused of the crime charged against him.
Evidence
The testimony of this witness demonstrates, then, that the relations sustained between Epifania and the accused after the alleged violation were those which would naturally be expected between persons who had nothing between them except friendly relations instead of those of violator and violated, and that the appearance and deportment of Epifania after the alleged violation were entirely different from those which would be naturally expected under the circumstances alleged by the prosecution.
The torn and bloody garments which the prosecution alleged were the result of the forcible violation of Epifania were not presented as evidence on the trial of this action, and the only testimony as to the existence of such garments is that of the mother of the girl alleged to have been violated.
US vs Samonte
G.R. No. 6740
September 1, 1911
Crispin Oben, for appellant.
Attorney-General Villamor, for appellee.
Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.
Facts:
It is alleged in this case that on the 24h day of August, 1909, while Epifania Abadines, a deaf-mute, was alone in her stepfather's house, the accused entered the same, and, seizing her, threw her upon the floor, and by means of force and violence, and in spite of her efforts and obligations, had sexually communication with her.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Province of La Laguna, the Hon. Vicente Jocson presiding, convicting the accused of the crime of rape and sentencing him to fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion temporal, to the accessories provided by law, to pay to the person violated the sum of P500, to recognize and maintain the child, if any there should be, and to pay the costs of the action.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant has raped the appellee?
Held:
No. Upon the whole case there is a clear doubt that the evidence establishes the guilt of the accused. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and acquit the accused of the crime charged against him.
Evidence
The testimony of this witness demonstrates, then, that the relations sustained between Epifania and the accused after the alleged violation were those which would naturally be expected between persons who had nothing between them except friendly relations instead of those of violator and violated, and that the appearance and deportment of Epifania after the alleged violation were entirely different from those which would be naturally expected under the circumstances alleged by the prosecution.
The torn and bloody garments which the prosecution alleged were the result of the forcible violation of Epifania were not presented as evidence on the trial of this action, and the only testimony as to the existence of such garments is that of the mother of the girl alleged to have been violated.
People vs Astorga
Chester Cabalza recommends his visitors to please read the original & full text of the case cited. Xie xie!
People vs Astorga
G.R. No. 154130
October 1, 2003
Concur: Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, and Carpio, JJ.
Facts:
On September 1, 1997 at the Municipality of Daram, Province of Samar, Philippines, Hon. Benito Astorga, a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Daram, Samar, and his men under fictitious names JOHN DOES, who were armed with firearms of different calibers to feloniously detain Elpidio Simon, Moises dela Cruz, Wenifredo Maniscan, Renato Militante and Crisanto Pelias, DENR Employees, at the Municipality of Daram, by not allowing them to leave the place, without any legal and valid grounds thereby restraining and depriving them of their personal liberty for nine (9) hours, but without exceeding three (3) days.
Issue:
Whether or not the appeal of the accused for arbitrary or illegal detention of DENR employees be reversed?
Held:
No. The petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986, dated July 5, 2001 finding petitioner BENITO ASTORGA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum, is AFFIRMED in toto.
Arbitrary or Illegal Detention
The provisions of law punishing arbitrary or illegal detention committed by government officers form part of our statute books even before the advent of American sovereignty in our country. Those provisions were already in effect during the Spanish regime; they remained in effect under American rule; continued in effect under the Commonwealth. Even under the Japanese regime they were not repealed. The same provisions continue in the statute books of the free and sovereign Republic of the Philippines. This notwithstanding, and the complaints often heard of violations of said provisions, it is very seldom that prosecutions under them have been instituted due to the fact that the erring individuals happened to belong to the same government to which the prosecuting officers belong. It is high time that every one must do his duty, without fear or favor, and that prosecuting officers should not answer with cold shrugging of the shoulders the complaints of the victims of arbitrary or illegal detention.
Only by an earnest enforcement of the provisions of articles 124 and 125 of the Revised Penal Code will it be possible to reduce to its minimum such wanton trampling of personal freedom as depicted in this case. The responsible officials should be prosecuted, without prejudice to the detainees’ right to the indemnity to which they may be entitled for the unjustified violation of their fundamental rights.
People vs Astorga
G.R. No. 154130
October 1, 2003
Concur: Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, and Carpio, JJ.
Facts:
On September 1, 1997 at the Municipality of Daram, Province of Samar, Philippines, Hon. Benito Astorga, a public officer, being the Municipal Mayor of Daram, Samar, and his men under fictitious names JOHN DOES, who were armed with firearms of different calibers to feloniously detain Elpidio Simon, Moises dela Cruz, Wenifredo Maniscan, Renato Militante and Crisanto Pelias, DENR Employees, at the Municipality of Daram, by not allowing them to leave the place, without any legal and valid grounds thereby restraining and depriving them of their personal liberty for nine (9) hours, but without exceeding three (3) days.
Issue:
Whether or not the appeal of the accused for arbitrary or illegal detention of DENR employees be reversed?
Held:
No. The petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 24986, dated July 5, 2001 finding petitioner BENITO ASTORGA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Arbitrary Detention and sentencing him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to one (1) year and eight (8) months of prision correccional, as maximum, is AFFIRMED in toto.
Arbitrary or Illegal Detention
The provisions of law punishing arbitrary or illegal detention committed by government officers form part of our statute books even before the advent of American sovereignty in our country. Those provisions were already in effect during the Spanish regime; they remained in effect under American rule; continued in effect under the Commonwealth. Even under the Japanese regime they were not repealed. The same provisions continue in the statute books of the free and sovereign Republic of the Philippines. This notwithstanding, and the complaints often heard of violations of said provisions, it is very seldom that prosecutions under them have been instituted due to the fact that the erring individuals happened to belong to the same government to which the prosecuting officers belong. It is high time that every one must do his duty, without fear or favor, and that prosecuting officers should not answer with cold shrugging of the shoulders the complaints of the victims of arbitrary or illegal detention.
Only by an earnest enforcement of the provisions of articles 124 and 125 of the Revised Penal Code will it be possible to reduce to its minimum such wanton trampling of personal freedom as depicted in this case. The responsible officials should be prosecuted, without prejudice to the detainees’ right to the indemnity to which they may be entitled for the unjustified violation of their fundamental rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)