Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. NORIEL LACERNA Y CORDERO

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 209387 2016-01-11	ERWIN LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
[145] People v. Lacerna, 344 Phil. 100, 124 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
	GR No. 195956 2015-03-11	ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON LEONEN, J.
In the case of mala in se it is necessary, to constitute a punishable offense, for the person doing the act to have knowledge of the nature of his act and to have a criminal intent; in the case of mala prohibita, unless such words as "knowingly" and "willfully" are contained in the statute, neither knowledge nor criminal intent is necessary. In other words, a person morally quite innocent and with every intention of being a law-abiding citizen becomes a criminal, and liable to criminal penaltes, if he does an act prohibited by these statutes.[134] (Emphasis supplied) Hence, "[i]ntent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate the act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act, and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself[.]"[135] When an act is prohibited by a special law, it is considered injurious to public welfare, and the performance of the prohibited act is the crime itself.[136]
	GR No. 195956 2015-03-11	ABS-CBN CORPORATION v. FELIPE GOZON LEONEN, J.
Trade exhibit of the article in public, shall be guilty of an offense and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment and fine as above mentioned. (Sec. 29, P.D. No. 49a) (Emphasis supplied) The law is clear. Inasmuch as there is wisdom in prioritizing the flow and exchange of ideas as opposed to rewarding the creator, it is the plain reading of the law in conjunction with the actions of the legislature to which we defer. We have continuously "recognized the power of the legislature . . . to forbid certain acts in a limited class of cases and to make their commission criminal without regard to the intent of the doer. Such legislative enactments are based on the experience that repressive measures which depend for their efficiency upon proof of the dealer's knowledge or of his intent are of little use and rarely accomplish their purposes."[147]
	GR No. 189272 2015-01-21	PEOPLE v. CHI CHAN LIU PERALTA, J.
The elements of illegal possession of regulated drugs are as follows: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the regulated drug.[40]
	GR No. 175939 2013-04-03	PEOPLE v. CHAD MANANSALA Y LAGMAN BERSAMIN, J.
For sure, there have been many occasions in which the Court has found an accused charged with the illegal sale of marijuana in violation of Section 4 guilty instead of the illegal possession of marijuana in violation of Section 8. In the oft-cited case of People v. Lacerna,[17] the Court held as prevailing the doctrine that the illegal sale of marijuana absorbs the illegal possession of marijuana, except if the seller was also apprehended in the illegal possession of another quantity of marijuana not covered by or not included in the illegal sale, and the other quantity of marijuana was probably intended for some future dealings or use by the accused. The premise used in Lacerna was that the illegal possession, being an element of the illegal sale, was necessarily included in the illegal sale. The Court observed thusly: In People vs. Manzano, the Court identified the elements of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, as follows: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug. Although it did not expressly state it, the Court stressed delivery, which implies prior possession of the prohibited drugs. Sale of a prohibited drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug, affirming that possession is a condition sine qua non.
	GR No. 181826 2013-01-09	PEOPLE v. HONG YEN E ABAD, J.
The elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are as follows: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug.[10]
	GR No. 194445 2012-03-12	PEOPLE v. ROGER POSADAY URBANO REYES, J.
Since sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes possession of the same, the accused-appellants should be convicted of possession. We have consistently ruled that possession of prohibited or dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof.[64] Then Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban logically and clearly explained the rationale behind this ruling, to wit: The prevailing doctrine is that possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller.
	GR No. 185284 2009-06-22	PEOPLE v. JASON SY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In dealing with prosecutions for the illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug as evidence.[14] Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched the following as elements in the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a dangerous drug.[15]
	GR No. 141532 2004-04-14	PEOPLE v. GATUDAN BALAG-EY PANGANIBAN, J.
The aforementioned Section 4 penalizes "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." This provision is violated by the commission of any of the acts specified therein or a combination thereof.[30] Moreover, the prevailing doctrine is that "possession of prohibited drugs" is a necessary element in the offense of selling them, except where the seller is also found in possession of another quantity of prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller.[31]