September 17, 2006

After receiving a reliable information that Dante Ong, a notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL
Flight No. PR 181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a group of anti-drug agents. When Ong
arrived at the airport, the group arrested him and seized his attaché case. Upon inspection inside the
Immigration holding area, the attaché case yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams. Chief
Inspector Gamboa took the attaché case and boarded him in an unmarked car driven by PO3 Pepito
Lorbes. On the way to Camp Crame and upon nearing White Plains corner Edsa, Chief Inspector Gamboa
ordered PO3 Lorbes to stop the car. They brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and got 3
plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic
sacks of heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent and go home which the latter did.
Unknown to them, an NBI team of agents had been following them and witnessed the transaction. They
arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team followed Ong and
likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged.

What are their respective criminal liabilities? 5%

September 12, 2010

Matt was found guilty of drug trafficking while his younger brother Jeff was found guilty of possession of
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of
Republic Act No. 9165.

Matt filed a petition for probation. Jeff appealed his conviction during the pendency of which he also
filed a petition for probation.

The brothers’ counsel argued that they being first time offenders, their petitions for probation should be
granted. How would you resolve the brothers’ petitions for probation? Explain. (3%)

October 20, 2013

George, the 20-year old son of a rich politician, was arrested at the NAIA arrival lounge and found
positive for opium, a dangerous drug. When arrested, 15 grams of cocaine were found in his backpack.

What offense would you charge George under R.A. No. 9160 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act)?
(1%)

October 19, 2014

A, a young boy aged sixteen (16) at the time of the commission of the crime, was convicted when he was
already seventeen (17) years of age for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 or Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs for which the imposable penalty is life imprisonment and a fine. Section 98 of the same
law provides that if the penalty imposed is life imprisonment to death on minor offenders, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetuato death. Under R.A. 9344, a minor offender is entitled to a privilege
mitigating circumstance. (8%)
(A) May the privilege mitigating circumstance of minority be appreciated considering that the penalty
imposed by law is life imprisonment and fine?

(B) Is the Indeterminate Sentence Law applicable considering that life imprisonment has no fixed
duration and the Dangerous Drugs Law is malum prohibitum?

(C) If the penalty imposed is more than six (6) years and a notice of appeal was filed by Aand given due
course by the court, may A still file an application for probation?

(D) If probation is not allowed by the court, how will Aserve his sentence?

November 25, 2015

The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) had intelligence reports about the drug pushing
activities of Rado, but could not arrest him for lack of concrete evidence. SP03 Relio, a PDEA team leader,
approached Emilo and requested him to act as poseur-buyer of shabu and transact with Rado. Emilo
refused, saying that he had completely been rehabilitated and did not want to have anything to do with
drugs anymore. But he was prevailed upon to help when SP03 Relio explained that only he could help
capture Rado because he used to be his customer. SP03 Relio then gave Emilo the marked money to be
used in buying shabu from Rado. The operation proceeded. After Emilo handed the marked money to
Rado in exchange for the sachets of shabu weighing 50 grams, and upon receiving the pre-arranged
signal from Ernilo, SP03 Relio and his team members barged in and arrested Rado and Ernilo, who were
both charged with violation of R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002.

a) What defense, if any, may Ernilo invoke to free himself from criminal liability? Explain. (2.5%)

b) May Rado adopt as his own Ernilo's defense? Explain. (2.5%)

November 20, 2016

Dimas was arrested after a valid buy-bust operation. Macario, the policeman who acted as poseur-buyer,
inventoried and photographed ten (10) sachets of shabu in the presence of a barangay tanod. The
inventory was signed by Macario and the tanod, but Dimas refused to sign. As Macario was stricken with
flu the day after, he was able to surrender the sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory only after four (4)
days. During pre-trial, the counsel de oficio of Dimas stipulated that the substance contained in the
sachets examined by the forensic chemist is in fact methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Dimas
was convicted of violating Section 5 of RA 9165. On appeal, Dimas questioned the admissibility of the
evidence because Macario failed to observe the requisite "chain of custody" of the alleged "shabu"
seized from him. On behalf of the State, the Solicitor General claimed that despite non-compliance with
some requirements, the prosecution was able to show that the integrity of the substance was preserved.
Moreover, even with some deviations from the requirements, the counsel of Dimas stipulated that the
substance seized from Dimas was shabu so that the conviction should be affirmed.

[a] What is the "chain of custody" requirement in drug offenses? (2.5%)

[b] Rule on the contention of the State. (2.5%)

November 18, 2018

Before returning to Manila, Robin and Rowell bought a dozen lollipops laced with cannabis, as souvenir
and "pasalubong" for their friends. They were accosted at the Manila International Airport and were
charged with importation of dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
They were also charged with use of dangerous drugs after pictures of them in the "coffee shop" in
Amsterdam were posted on Facebook, showing them smoking and taking shots of a whole menu of
cannabis and marijuana products. Their own captions on their Facebook posts clearly admitted that they
were using the dangerous products. The pictures were posted by them through Private Messenger (PM)
only for their close friends, but Roccino, the older brother of one of their best friends, was able to get
hold of his younger brother's password, and without authority from his brother, accessed his PM and
shared Robin and Rowell's Amsterdam photos on Facebook.

(a) Can Robin and Rowell be prosecuted for use of dangerous drugs for their one-night use of these
products in Amsterdam? (2.5%)

(b) Can they be prosecuted for importation of dangerous drugs?