Illegal Possession of Different Drugs

Absent any clear interpretation as to the application of the penalties in cases such as the present one, this Court shall construe it in favor of the petitioner for the subject provision is penal in nature. It is a well-known rule of legal hermeneutics that penal or criminal laws are strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. Thus, an accused may only be convicted of a single offense of possession of dangerous drugs if he or she was caught in possession of different kinds of dangerous drugs in a single occasion. If convicted, the higher penalty shall be imposed, which is still lighter if the accused is convicted of two (2) offenses having two (2) separate penalties. This interpretation is more in keeping with the intention of the legislators as well as more favorable to the accused (David v. People, G.R. No. 181861. October 17, 2011).

Rape with Homicide

Considering that the prosecution in this case was able to prove both the rape of AAA and the killing of Jennifer both perpetrated by appellant, he is liable for rape with homicide under the above provision. There is no doubt that appellant killed Jennifer to prevent her from aiding AAA or calling for help once she is able to run away, and also to silence her completely so she may not witness the rape of AAA, the original intent of appellant. His carnal desire having been satiated, appellant purposely covered AAA’s body with grass, as he did earlier with Jennifer’s body, so that it may not be easily noticed or seen by passersby. Appellant indeed thought that the savage blows he had inflicted on AAA were enough to cause her death as with Jennifer. But AAA survived and appellant’s barbaric deeds were soon enough discovered.

The facts established showed that the constitutive elements of rape with homicide were consummated, and it is immaterial that the person killed in this case is someone other than the woman victim of the rape. An analogy may be drawn from our rulings in cases of robbery with homicide, where the component acts of homicide, physical injuries and other offenses have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery (People v. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011).

Chain of Custody

The prosecution failed to show how the seized items changed hands, from when the police officers seized them from Habana to the time they were presented in court as evidence. PO1 Paras said that he turned over the sachets of shabu to the investigator on duty. But the prosecution did not adduce evidence on what the investigator on duty did with the seized articles, how these got to the laboratory technician, and how they were kept before being adduced in evidence at the trial.

Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory.

If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and seal the same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a new seal since the police officer’s seal has been broken. At the trial, the technician can then describe the sealed condition of the plastic container when it was handed to him and testify on the procedure he took afterwards to preserve its integrity.

If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly one’s possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his care. (People v. Habana, G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010)

Authority to Compromise of Government

Under this provision, the authority to compromise a settled claim or liability exceeding P100,000.00 involving a government agency, as in this case where the liability amounts to P6.185 billion, is vested not in COA but exclusively in Congress. Congress alone has the power to compromise the P6.185 billion purported liability of PNCC. (STRADCOR v. Radstock, G.R. No. 178158, 4 December 2009)

Ipso Facto Resignation of Appointive Officials

If we accept these as the underlying objectives of the law, then the assailed provision cannot be constitutionally rescued on the ground of valid classification. Glaringly absent is the requisite that the classification must be germane to the purposes of the law. Indeed, whether one holds an appointive office or an elective one, the evils sought to be prevented by the measure remain. For example, the Executive Secretary, or any Member of the Cabinet for that matter, could wield the same influence as the Vice-President who at the same time is appointed to a Cabinet post (in the recent past, elected Vice-Presidents were appointed to take charge of national housing, social welfare development, interior and local government, and foreign affairs). With the fact that they both head executive offices, there is no valid justification to treat them differently when both file their CoCs for the elections.

xxx xxx xxx

First, the provision pertains to all civil servants holding appointive posts without distinction as to whether they occupy high positions in government or not. Certainly, a utility worker in the government will also be considered as ipso facto resigned once he files his CoC for the 2010 elections. This scenario is absurd for, indeed, it is unimaginable how he can use his position in the government to wield influence in the political world.

Second, the provision is directed to the activity of seeking any and all public offices, whether they be partisan or nonpartisan in character, whether they be in the national, municipal or barangay level. Congress has not shown a compelling state interest to restrict the fundamental right involved on such a sweeping scale. (Quinto v. Comelec, G.R. No. 189698, 1 December 2009)

Need for Signature of Acknowledging Parent

In view of the pronouncements herein made, the Court sees it fit to adopt the following rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in any private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made:

1) Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the requirement that the same must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and

2) Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other evidence. (Dela Cruz v. Gracia, G.R. No. 177728, July 31, 2009)

Section 10 of RA 8042 Unconstitutional

The Court concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect classification in that, in the computation of the monetary benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged, it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-term employment. The subject clause singles out one classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar disadvantage.

Thus, the subject clause in the 5th paragraph of Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 is violative of the right of petitioner and other OFWs to equal protection. (Serrano v. Gallant, G.R. No. 167614, March 24, 2009)