SPO3 Dela Pena formed a team to conduct an operation based on a tip about a pot session at a house. Upon arriving, the team saw four people inside having a pot session through a window. After entering, they found drugs and paraphernalia. A search of the four people yielded plastic sachets containing shabu. The two accused, Jeric Pavia and Juan Buendia, denied liability, claiming they were just selling fruit when called to the house. However, they were convicted of violating Section 13, Article II of Republic Act 9165 for possession of dangerous drugs during a social gathering. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the elements of the offense were satisfied.
SPO3 Dela Pena formed a team to conduct an operation based on a tip about a pot session at a house. Upon arriving, the team saw four people inside having a pot session through a window. After entering, they found drugs and paraphernalia. A search of the four people yielded plastic sachets containing shabu. The two accused, Jeric Pavia and Juan Buendia, denied liability, claiming they were just selling fruit when called to the house. However, they were convicted of violating Section 13, Article II of Republic Act 9165 for possession of dangerous drugs during a social gathering. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the elements of the offense were satisfied.
SPO3 Dela Pena formed a team to conduct an operation based on a tip about a pot session at a house. Upon arriving, the team saw four people inside having a pot session through a window. After entering, they found drugs and paraphernalia. A search of the four people yielded plastic sachets containing shabu. The two accused, Jeric Pavia and Juan Buendia, denied liability, claiming they were just selling fruit when called to the house. However, they were convicted of violating Section 13, Article II of Republic Act 9165 for possession of dangerous drugs during a social gathering. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the elements of the offense were satisfied.
SPO3 Dela Pena formed a team to conduct an operation based on a tip about a pot session at a house. Upon arriving, the team saw four people inside having a pot session through a window. After entering, they found drugs and paraphernalia. A search of the four people yielded plastic sachets containing shabu. The two accused, Jeric Pavia and Juan Buendia, denied liability, claiming they were just selling fruit when called to the house. However, they were convicted of violating Section 13, Article II of Republic Act 9165 for possession of dangerous drugs during a social gathering. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding the elements of the offense were satisfied.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
The Facts:
Based on a confidential information that a pot session was taking place at the house of a certain Obet in Bgy. Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna, SPO3 Dela Pena formed a team composed of the confidential informant, PO2 Bautista, PO3 Parunggao, POI Signao and himself as team leader, to conduct an operation. Upon arrival at the area, they saw the house closed, but not surrounded by a fence, hence PO2 Bautista approached the house and peeped through a small opening in the window, where he saw four persons having a pot session. After finding a way to enter the house, the team caught the four persons by surprise, and after they introduced themselves as police officers, found drugs paraphernalia at the scene. A body search conducted on the persons yielded a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which sachets were marked by PO3 Parunggao with their initials corresponding to their names, Jeric Pavia (JP), and Juan Buendia (JB). These sachets were then transmitted to the laboratory where examination yielded them to be shabu. Thus, the accused were charged with violation of Section 13, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and corresponding information filed against them. In their defense, the two denied liability. According to them, they were just roaming the streets of Bgy. Cuyab selling star apples when they were called to a house by a prospective buyer, hence they entered the house. When they were about to leave, the policemen arrived, introduced themselves and invited them to the police station.
After trial, the RTC convicted the accused as charged. A lawful arrest preceded the search; no improper notice could be ascribed against the police officers, hence their testimony deserved full faith and credit. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the RTC judgment. Hence, they elevated their case to the Supreme Court.
The Issue:
Whether or not the accused were properly convicted for violation of Section 13, Article II of Republic Act 9165.
The Ruling:
We deny the appeal.
Appellants are charged under Section 13, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which provides: Section 13. Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings. Any person found possessing any dangerous drug during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons, shall suffer the maximum penalties provided for in Section 11 of this Act, regardless of the quantity and purity of such dangerous drugs.
The elements for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165 are the same as those for the violation of Section 11 of the law: (1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; (3) the free and conscious possession of the drug by the accused,1 with the additional element that (4) the accused possessed the prohibited or dangerous drug during a social gathering or meeting, or in the company of at least two persons.
