Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EDELMA LAGATA Y MANFOSTE

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 177224 2012-04-11	PEOPLE v. JIMMY BIYALA VELASQUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is committed when the following elements concur: "(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug."[31]
	GR No. 192816 2011-07-06	PEOPLE v. JOEL GASPAR Y WILSON CARPIO, J.
On the other hand, under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the elements of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[21]
	GR No. 176066 2010-08-11	PEOPLE v. ESTELA TUAN Y BALUDDA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is committed when the following elements concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.[30]
	GR No. 174097 2010-07-21	PEOPLE v. SONNY PADUA Y REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On the other hand, for an accused to be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.[31]
	GR No. 182419 2009-02-10	PEOPLE v. WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A: We were near each other, sir.[39] On the other hand, for an accused to be convicted of illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.[40]
	GR No. 182348 2008-11-20	PEOPLE v. CARLOS DELA CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
The elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[6] On the third element, we have held that the possession must be with knowledge of the accused or that animus possidendi existed with the possession or control of said articles.[7] Considering that as to this knowledge, a person's mental state of awareness of a fact is involved, we have ruled that:Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its perceptions with certainty, resort to other evidence is necessary. Animus possidendi, as a state of mind, may be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the attendant events in each particular case.[8]
	GR No. 149462 2004-03-29	PEOPLE v. PRISCILLA DEL NORTE PUNO, J.
Q: There was no incriminating evidence except this (sic) drugs taken by Police Officer de Leon and the barangay tanod, no other incriminating evidence? A: None, sir. (emphases supplied) In all criminal cases, it is appellant's constitutional right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt.[30] In the case at bar, we hold that the prosecution's evidence treads on shaky ground. We detest drug addiction in our society. However, we have the duty to protect appellant where the evidence presented show "insufficient factual nexus" of her participation in the commission of the offense charged.[31] In People vs. Laxa,[32] we held: The government's drive against illegal drugs deserves everybody's support. But it cannot be pursued by ignoble means which are violative of constitutional rights. It is precisely when the government's purposes are beneficent that we should be most on our guard to protect these rights. As Justice Brandeis warned long ago, "the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning without understanding." IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision of Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City is reversed. Appellant is acquitted based on reasonable doubt.