This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-21 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In a similar manner, considering that illegal possession is likewise an element of and is necessarily included in illegal importation of dangerous drugs, convicting appellants of the former, if duly established beyond reasonable doubt, does not amount to a violation of their right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against them. Indeed, where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.[38] | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Although the shabu was not found by the searching team on petitioner's person, it was found inside a bag which was hidden on top of a cabinet in the house of petitioner. Thus, petitioner is deemed in possession thereof. Petitioner was not lawfully authorized to possess the same. It can also be inferred that petitioner was privy to the existence of the shabu. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. With the burden of evidence shifted to the petitioner, it was his duty to explain his innocence about the regulated drug seized from his possession.[29] This, petitioner failed to do. | |||||