1.

ANTI-DRUNK AND DRUGGED DRIVING ACT OF 2013 (REPUBLIC ACT 10586):

What is the coverage of the law and its penalties?

The law covers all acts of driving and/or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of
alcohol, and/or dangerous drugs and similar substances.

Motor vehicle refers to any land transportation vehicle propelled by any power other than
muscular power, including: (1) Trucks and buses, which are motor vehicles with gross vehicle
weight from 4501 kg and above; and (2) Motorcycles, which are two- or three-wheeled motor
vehicles and which may include a side-car attached thereto.

Are there criminal penalties under R.A. 10586?

Yes, offenders can be imprisoned. The law, in fact, penalizes both the DRIVER and the OWNER
of the vehicle involved.

Liability of drivers

A driver found to have been driving a motor vehicle and committing the act of DUIA or DUID
shall be penalized as follows:

a. If the violation did not result in physical injuries or homicide, the penalty of three (3) months
imprisonment, and a fine ranging from Php 20,000 Php 80,000.00 shall be imposed;

b. If the violation resulted in physical injuries, the penalty provided in Article 263 of the
Revised Penal Code or the penalty provided in the next preceding subparagraph, whichever is
higher, and a fine ranging from Php 100,000 to Php 200,000 shall be imposed;

c. If the violation resulted in homicide, the penalty provided in Article 249 of the Revised Penal
Code and a fine ranging from Php 300,000 to Php 500,000 shall be imposed; and (reclusion
temporal)

d. The non-professional drivers license of any person found to have violated the law shall also
be confiscated and suspended for a period of twelve (12) months for the first conviction and
perpetually revoked for the second conviction. The professional drivers license shall also be
confiscated and perpetually revoked for the first conviction. The perpetual revocation of a
drivers license shall disqualify the person from being granted any kind of drivers license
thereafter.

e. The prosecution for any violation of this law shall be without prejudice to criminal
prosecution for violation of the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. 9165 and other special
laws and existing local ordinances, whenever applicable. (WILL NOT BE A BAR)

Direct liability of operator and/or owner

The owner and/or operator of the motor vehicle driven by the offender (including owners and/or
operators of public utility vehicles and commercial vehicles such as delivery vans, cargo trucks,
container trucks, school and company buses, hotel transports, cars or vans for rent, taxi cabs,
and the like) shall be directly and principally held liable together with the offender for the fine
and the award against the offender for civil damages unless he/she is able to convincingly prove
that he/she has exercised extraordinary diligence in the selection and supervision of his/her
drivers in general and the offending driver in particular.

What is DUIA?

Driving under the influence of alcohol or DUIA refers to the act of operating a motor vehicle
while the drivers BAC level has, after being subjected to an ABA test, reached the level of
intoxication, as established jointly by the DOH, the NAPOLCOM and the DOTC, in these Rules.
For this purpose, a driver of a private motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight not exceeding
4500 kg. a BAC of 0.05% or higher shall be conclusive proof that said driver is driving under the
influence of alcohol. For drivers of trucks, buses, motorcycles and public utility vehicles, a BAC
of more than 0.0% shall be conclusive proof that said driver is driving under the influence of
alcohol.

What is DUID?

Driving under the influence of dangerous drugs and other similar substances or DUID refers to
the act of operating a motor vehicle while the driver, after being subjected to a confirmatory test
as mandated under the law, is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug.

Who is LEO?

LEO refers to Law Enforcement Officers of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) or
authorized officer trained and deputized by the LTO to enforce the provisions of this law.

What is the procedure for apprehension under this law?

The basic requirement for apprehension is the existence of probable cause. In ALL cases, the
burden of proof to establish the existence of probable cause is on the LEO.

Probable cause shall mean that the LEO has reasonable ground to believe that the person
driving the motor vehicle is under the influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or other similar
substances upon personally witnessing a traffic offense committed by means of lane straddling,
making sudden stops, overspeeding, swerving or weaving in such an apparent way as to
indicate that the driver is under the influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or other similar
substances.

In the course of apprehension for another traffic offense, the evident smell of alcohol in a
drivers breath, generally slurred speech in response to questioning, bloodshot or reddish eyes,
flushed face, poor coordination, difficulty in understanding and responding intelligently to
questions shall also constitute probable cause.

What is the procedure in screening for DUIA?

Screening for driving under the influence of alcohol or DUIA is done under the following
procedure:
1. Upon personal determination of probable cause, a deputized LEO shall flag down the motor
vehicle, direct the driver to step out of the vehicle and determine whether or not the driver is
drunk or drugged. If the LEO has reasonable grounds to believe that the driver is drunk, the
LEO shall expressly inform the driver of his assessment and the driver shall be directed to
perform all of the three (3) above enumerated field sobriety test on site.

2. The LEO shall record the drivers responses to the field sobriety tests above enumerated,
which record shall form part of the records of the case.

3. If the driver passes all of the three (3) field sobriety tests, the driver shall be apprehended for
the other traffic offense only and not for violation of this law.

4. If the driver fails any of the field sobriety tests, the LEO shall proceed to determine the
drivers BAC level, through the use of the ABA, on site.

5. A driver of a motor vehicle who refuses to undergo the mandatory testing as required shall be
penalized by the confiscation and automatic revocation of his/her drivers license, in addition to
other penalties provided herein and/or other pertinent law, after compliance with the requirement
of due process.

6. A driver who, after ABA testing, registers a BAC higher than the prescribed limit shall be put
under arrest and the motor vehicle impounded. The LEO shall observe the proper procedure in
effecting the arrest and bringing the driver to the nearest police station for detention. The motor
vehicle shall also be brought to the nearest LTO impounding area until the same is claimed by
an authorized representative of its registered owner.

7. In case of a BAC within the allowed limit, the driver shall be apprehended for the other traffic
offense only and not for violation of this law.

8. Under no circumstance shall a driver, who has undergone and passed the field sobriety test
and/or ABA test, be subjected to drug screening test afterwards.

9. The LEO shall accomplish the following preparatory to the turnover of the case to the police
officer-on-duty of the nearest police station:

i. A complaint/charge sheet;

ii. Results of the field sobriety tests/ABA test in the prescribed format;

iii. Inventory of items under temporary custody (to include motor vehicle when necessary); and

iv. Other pertinent documents.

What are the Field Sobriety Tests?

There are three Field Sobriety Tests, which are standardized tests to initially assess and
determine intoxication, namely: the eye test (horizontal gaze nystagmus), the walk-and-turn and
the one-leg stand.
1. The Eye Test (horizontal gaze nystagmus) refers to horizontal or lateral jerking of the
drivers eyes as he or she gazessideways following a moving object such as a pen or the tip of a
penlight held by the LEO from a distance of about one (1) foot away from the face of the driver.

2. The Walk-and-Turn Test requires the driver to walk heel-to-toe along a straight line for nine
(9) steps, turn at the end and return to the point of origin without any difficulty.

3. The One-Leg Stand Test requires the driver to stand on either right or left leg with both arms
on the side. The driver is instructed to keep the foot raised about six (6) inches off the ground for
thirty (30) seconds.

The LTO is required to publish the guidelines and procedures for the proper conduct of field
sobriety tests, which guidelines shall be made available to the public and made available for
download through the official LTO website. These are the same guidelines to be used in training
the LEOs.

What is the procedure in screening for DUID?

If probably cause exists, the LEO shall follow the following procedure to screen for driving under
the influence of dangerous drugs and other similar substances (DUID):

1. Upon personal determination of probable cause, a deputized LEO shall flag down the motor
vehicle, direct the driver to step out of the vehicle and determine whether or not the driver is
drunk or drugged. If the LEO has reasonable grounds to believe that the driver is drugged, the
LEO shall expressly inform the driver of his assessment and shall bring the driver to the nearest
police station.

2. At the police station, the driver shall be subjected to a drug screening test, in accordance with
existing operational rules and procedures, and if positive, a drug confirmatory test under
Republic Act No. 9165.

3. Under no circumstance shall a driver, who has undergone and passed the drug, be subjected
to field sobriety test and/or ABA test afterwards.

4. After a positive confirmation, the LEO shall accomplish the following preparatory to the
turnover of the case to the police officer-on-duty of the nearest police station:

i. Results of the conduct of the DRP in the prescribed format;

ii. Inventory of items under temporary custody (to include motor vehicle when necessary); and

iii. Other pertinent documents.

5. Without positive confirmation, the driver shall be apprehended for the other traffic offense only
and not for violation of this law.

What happens to the Drivers License of those apprehended under the law?
All drivers licenses confiscated under these rules shall be turned over to LTO for safekeeping
and shall be released by LTO only after final disposition or lawful order of the courts.

When is alcohol and drug testing mandatory?

A driver of a motor vehicle involved in a vehicular accident resulting in the loss of human life or
physical injuries shall be subjected to on site field sobriety test and ABA testing, whenever
practicable, and, thereafter chemical tests, including a drug screening test and, if necessary, a
drug confirmatory test as mandated under Republic Act No. 9165, to determine the presence
and/or concentration of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or similar substances in the bloodstream
orbody. A LEO may use other alcohol testing equipment, such as Gas Chromatography-Mass
Spectroscopy (GCMS), whenever the use of an ABA is not practicable under prevailing
circumstances.

A driver of a motor vehicle who refuses to undergo the mandatory testing as required shall be
penalized by the confiscation and automatic revocation of his or her drivers license, in addition
to other penalties provided herein and/or other pertinent laws.

Can the LTO conduct RANDOM drug testing?

Yes, but only for drivers of PUVs. The LTO shall conduct random terminal inspections and quick
random drug tests of public utility drivers. A driver of a motor vehicle who refuses to undergo
quick random drug tests as required shall be penalized by the confiscation and automatic
revocation of his or her drivers license, in addition to other penalties provided herein and/or
other pertinent laws.

Can any traffic enforcer be a LEO?

No. LEOs must possess the required qualifications and undergo the requisite deputation
procedures. The LTO may deputize only active members of the PNP, the Metropolitan Manila
Development Authority (MMDA) and LGUs, who are occupying permanent position items and
whose present work assignments are directly and actually related to traffic management and
control. LTO enforcement officers, by virtue of their functions, need not be deputized to enforce
and implement these rules. However, said LTO enforcers shall be subject to the same
reportorial and procedural guidelines set forth herein. LEOs with previous deputations revoked
for any reason whatsoever shall not be qualified for further deputation.

A deputation order shall be valid for six (6) months from date of issue and may be renewed
every six (6) months thereafter unless earlier recalled by the LTO Assistant Secretary. The LTO
shall maintain and update the list of deputized LEOs and other records such as information
sheet of deputies, deputation orders, IDs, TOP booklets and other relevant documents.

What is the procedure to be observed by LEOs for deputation?

All LEOs must: (a) submit, prior to deputation, certain requirements to the LTO; (b)
undergo Deputies Training Seminar that includes required subject areas; and (c) pass the
written and other examinations to be administered by the LTO. The requirements to be
submitted by LEOs to the LTO include the information sheet duly indorsed by the Head of
Office/agency, a certified true copy of the Certificate of Appointment, a certification from the
recommending government agency that the LEO has no record of or pending administrative or
criminal cases, and valid drug test results taken within the past six months prior to application.

What are the liabilities of deputized LEOs?

Any deputized LEO shall be held liable under the following:

1. Soliciting or accepting, directly or indirectly any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or
anything of monetary value from any person in the course of his or her official duties or in
connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by
the functions of his or her office under this law.

2. Republic Act No. 6713 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees, Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 9485 otherwise known as Anti-Red Tape Act and
other applicable laws.

What are the grounds for revocation of the deputation order?

The revocation of a LEO deputation may be initiated by a verified complaint, filed directly before
LTO which shall conduct the investigation of the complaint. Pending the resolution of the
complaint, the LTO Assistant Secretary may order the suspension of the deputation to preclude
any incident of harassment of the complainant. A Show Cause Order shall be issued against the
deputized LEO to answer the charges against him/her. The LTO Assistant Secretary may
suspend or revoke any deputation order at any time for any reason whatsoever.

Any of the following causes shall constitute sufficient ground for the revocation of the
deputation: (1) Discourteous conduct; (2) Extortion; (3) Negligence; (4) Insubordination;
(5) Misconduct; (6) Abuse of authority; (7) Incompetence and inefficiency; (8) Corruption;
(9) Failure to submit apprehension report within 24 hours from date and time of apprehension;
(10) Any offense involving moral turpitude; (11) Separation from government service;
(12) Dishonesty; (13) Death; (14) Withdrawal of endorsement by Head of Agency who endorsed
the request for deputation; (15) Use of dangerous drugs and other similar substances before
and during the period of deputation; (16) Intoxication while in the performance of duty; and
(17) Other causes similar to and analogous to the foregoing.

RA 9165 and its amendments (RA 10640) JUNE 7, 2002

R.A. No. 9165 repealed and superseded R.A. No. 6425, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972
Sec. 3. Definition of terms
(a) Administer Any act of introducing any dangerous drugs into the body of any person xxx
unless administered by a duly licensed practitioner for the purpose of medication.
(cc) Planting of evidence The willful act by any person maliciously and surreptitiously
inserting (etcetera) thru any overt or covert act, whatever quantity of any drugs in the
 person, house, effects, or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose
of implicating, incriminating or imputing the commission of any violation of the act.

RA 9165: Notes in Interpretation

1.) Buy-bust Operation

There are no hard and fast rules for buy-bust operations. They are presumed to be regular
operations unless the accused can prove that they weren't and that there was a frame-
up (People vs Agustin, 215 SCRA 725.) Frame-up, also known as inducement, is easy to
fabricate and must be disregarded unless the evidence is clear and convincing. A sale happens
when the transaction is consummated and may be on payment or delivery (People vs Ponsica,
230 SCRA 87.) What matters is that the accused was caught in the act (People vs. Aspiras, 376
SCRA 546.)

Mere acting as a broker is already sufficient to commit the crime of selling drugs (People vs.
Agustin.)

2.) "Plain View" Doctrine

In a lawful arrest, a search is always in order. The search, however, is limited only to the person
of the accused and the premises under his immediate control. A seizure under the "plain view"
doctrine must conform to the following rules (from People vs. Aspiras:)

1.) There is a valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest (it's not just ordinary
people who can do this) with the police legally present
2.) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the policemen who had the right to be
there
3.) The evidence must be immediately apparent
4.) "Plain view" justifies mere seizure without further search

3.) Elements of Illegal Sale

Taken from People vs. Evangelista, 534 SCRA 245 and People vs.Santiago, 539 SCRA 198:

a.) Identities of the buyer, seller, object (thing to be sold) and consideration (price)
b.) Delivery of the thing sold and payment of the price

There are 2 additional details from People vs. Pendatun, 434 SCRA 148:

a.) The accused sold and delivered the drug to another person
b.) He knew that he sold and delivered a dangerous drug

4.) Kinds of Possession

Possession doesn't only include actual possession. There's also what's known
as constructive possession. Constructive possession happens when the drug is under the
control of the accused or if he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place
where the drugs are. People vs. Tira (430 SCRA 134) gives us 2 sets of elements for actual
possession: for illegal drugs and controlled precursors and essential chemicals/regulated drugs.
Constructive possession can be exclusive as well as joint (People vs. Huang, 439 SCRA 350.)

Illegal drugs:

a.) Actual possession of an illegal drug

b.) The possession isn't authorized by law
c.) The accused freely and consciously possessed the drug

Controlled precursors and essential chemicals/regulated drugs (also found in People vs Castillo,
439 SCRA 601:)

a.) Accused is found in possession of a regulated drug

b.) He isn't authorized by law or duly-constituted authority (ex. he doesn't have a doctor's
prescription)
c.) He knows that the drug is regulated

5.) Possession vs. Sale

Possession and sale are different crimes. When a person is arrested while selling drugs, the
possession of the drugs he has are absorbed into the sale. Hence, the only crime committed is
sale (People vs. Catan, 205 SCRA 235.) The exception is if the accused sold the drugs but has
some more in his possession (People vs. Angeles (218 SCRA 352.) If that happens, he will be
tried for both possession and sale.

6.) Receipt of Payment

A basic rule in civil law is that there is already a sale when the seller agrees to sell and the
buyer agrees to buy. This is also considered in RA 9165. There is already a sale when the buyer
agrees to buy and the seller agrees to sell. Consequently, payment of the money for a buy-bust
operation isn't necessary anymore (People vs Yang, 423 SCRA 82.) In fact, even if the "buyer"
didn't have the money, there's already a sale if he agreed to buy (People vs. Macasa 229 SCRA
422.)

Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

(The provisions of Article 190 to 194 have been repealed. First there was R.A. 6425 known as
the Dangerous Drugs Law of l972 as amended by R.A. 7659. This law has in turn been replaced
by R.A. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Some
salient provisions are summarized hereunder).

A. Change in the classification of dangerous substances. The old classification between

Prohibited and Regulated Drugs have been replaced by classifying dangerous substances into
(i) Dangerous Drugs (DD) and (ii) Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals (CP/EC)

DD and CP/EC are not defined but refer to those substances which are enumerated in the list of
schedules prepared and adopted by International Conventions.
B. Factors Affecting Criminal Liability:

1. The kind of dangerous substance involved: the penalty is higher if what are involved
are DD.

2. The Act performed by the accused such as:

a. Importation

b. Sale, trading, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation. (Note: The quantity of
the substance involved is immaterial)

c. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort Being an employee or visitor of a den, dive or resort
d. Manufacture of a DD or CP/EC or drug paraphernalia

e. Illegal chemical diversion

f. Possession of a DD

(i). The possession of different substances give rise to separate charges of possession even if
the drugs were seized in the same place and occasion ( PP. vs. Empleo, 503 SCRA 464; PP. vs.
Tira 430 SCRA 134) . Thus one may be charged for possession of Marijuana separate from
possession of shabu (methamphetamine hydrocloride)

(ii). One may be charged for sale of shabu and a separate charge of possession of another
gram of shabu which was not the subject of the sale

(iii). One charged for sale or delivery may be convicted of possession if the sale or possession
was not proven

(iv). In this charge of possession, the quantity of the substance determines the penalty to be
imposed

(v). Possession may be actual or constructive. Actual possession is when the drug is in the
immediate physical possession or control of the accused constructive possession exists
when the drug is under the dominion or control of the accused or when he has a right to
exercise dominion or control over the place where it is found ( PP vs. Tira,430 SCRA 134)

Thus a person may be convicted for possession of drugs found inside his bedroom even if at the
time of the seizure, he was physically absent there from ( PP vs. Torres, Sept. 12, 2006)

f. Possession of DD or drug paraphernalia during parties, social gatherings or meetings or in the

proximity of at least two persons ( these are new provisions)

d. Use of DD provided the accused is not charged for possession

e. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as DD or sources thereof. This need not be in a

plantation. One plant of marijuana in a flower pot is included

f. Offenses by physicians and drug stores:

(i) failure to maintain and keep records of transactions of any DD or CP/EC

(ii) Unnecessary prescription

(iii) Unlawful prescription

g. Two new acts are included:

(i). Acting as a Financier: a person who pays for, raises, or supplies money for, or underwrites
any of the illegal activities involving dangerous substances

(ii). Acting as a Protector or coddler: a person who knowingly and willfully consents to the
unlawful acts provided for in the law and who uses his influence, power or position in shielding,
harboring, screening or facilitating the escape of any person whom he knows or has grounds to
believe has violated the provisions of this Act in order to prevent the arrest, prosecution and
conviction of the violator

j. Attempt or conspiracy. Note that the law does not include possession as being the subject of
an attempt or conspiracy ( Is this omission intentional or by oversight? )

3. The Quantity of the dangerous substance if the act of that of possession

4. The presence of special aggravating circumstances.

a). These vary according to the act of the accused. Thus in the act of importing: that the
accused is a diplomat or a financier. In cases of sale, delivery, administration or transporting:
that it took place within a radius of 100 meters form a school; the use of a minor or a mentally
incapacitated person; or that the victim is a minor or a mentally incapacitate person; or that the
DD is the proximate cause of the death; or that the suspect is a financier

b). The application of these circumstances is doubtful considering that the penalties provided for
by the Act do not follow the nomenclature and scheme of the penalties under the Revised Penal
Code and they do not have periods

C. New Acts punished: The law seeks to address certain abuses by law enforcers as well as
causes of unsuccessful prosecution or dismissal of drug cases filed in court.

1.Creation of a new qualifying aggravating circumstance applicable to offenses under the

Revised Penal Code consisting of a POSITIVE FINDING FOR THE USE OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS. This must be corroborated by a confirmatory drug test

a). Under the old law what constituted an aggravating circumstance was that the accused
committed a crime while under the influence of drug. Under the new law, the accused need
not be high on drugs during the time of committing of a crime so long as the test showed he is a
user of drugs

b). The application of the new qualifying aggravating circumstance poses a problem to felonies
which do not have qualified forms such as parricide, threats, physical injuries, robbery. ( In such
a case it is suggested the circumstance must be appreciated as a special aggravating to give
meaning to the intent of the congress to punish more severely the users who commits crimes)

2. Defining and Penalizing the offense of Planting of Evidence i..e planting of any dangerous
substances in the person, house, effects, or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent individual
for the purpose of implicating, incriminating or imputing the commission of any violation of this
Act

a). If what is planted is not a dangerous substances the crime is that of Incriminating an
Innocent Person/Incriminatory Machination under the Revised Penal Code.

b). The penalty is death

3. Penalizing any public officer who misappropriates, misapplies or fails to account for the
DD/CP/EC, paraphernalia, proceeds or properties obtained form unlawful acts. ( Note: Consider
this as Malversation or Infidelity of Dangerous Drugs, Drug paraphernalia and Drug Proceeds)

4. Penalizes the following acts of law enforcers:

a). Failure or refusal after due notice, to appear as witnesses for the prosecution

b). Failure of the immediate superior to exert reasonable efforts to present the witness in court

c). Failure of the immediate superior to notify the court of the transfer or re-assignment of a
witness during the pendency of the case to another territorial jurisdiction. Note that the transfer
of re-assignment to the witnesses to another territorial jurisdiction must only be for compelling
reason and provided the court was notified 24 hours in advance.

5. Defines and Penalizes the act of Delay and Bungling in the Prosecution of Drug Cases i.e.
the prosecution causes the unsuccessful prosecution or the dismissal through patent laxity,
inexcusable neglect or unreasonable delay. There must first be an Order of dismissal or
Judgment of acquittal, based on the fault of the prosecution.

6. In case of conviction:

a). the convict suffers the accessory penalty of disqualification to exercise civil rights and
political rights and that rights are suspended during the pendency of an appeal from such a
conviction.

b). After conviction by the RTC: there shall be hearing for the confiscation and forfeiture of
unexplained wealth of the accused. In case the article declared forfeited is a vehicle, the same
shall be auctioned not later than five days from the order of confiscation or forfeiture
7. Prohibition against plea bargaining and disqualification from probation for those convicted of
drug trafficking

8. Provides as a ground for removal from office of an elective official; that of having benefited
from the proceeds of drug trafficking or receipt of any financial or material contribution or
donation from persons found guilty of drug trafficking.

D. Provisions Against Act affecting the Integrity of the evidence or their possible appropriation by
agents:

1. Conduct of a Physical Inventory and Photographing of the Evidence

a. Immediately upon the arrest, seizure or confiscation

b. In the presence of (i) the accused or person form whom the articles were taken or his
representative (ii) a representative form the DOJ (iii) representative from the Media and (iv) an
elected official. These persons must also sign the written inventory

2. Submission of the article within 24 hours to the Crime Laboratory for Quantitative
( how many kilos or grams) and qualitative ( what kind of substance was involved)
examination

3. Requirement that the results of the crime laboratory examination must be under oath

4. Upon the filing of the Information in Court:

a. Conduct of an ocular inspection or examination of the evidence by the court within 72 hours.
This may be in the place were the evidence are kept if the same cannot be presented in court,
or the evidence are actually brought and presented in court.

b. Destruction of the articles within 24 hours following the inspection but representative
samples are taken and preserved

5. Destruction of the representative samples after conviction, forfeiture and confiscation

of other proceeds of the crime and

E. Provisions intended to benefit the drug dependent- the following are applicable only if the
charge is for the use of DD/CP/EC :

1. Community service in lieu of imprisonment

2. Exemption from Criminal Liability for first time offenders who underwent treatment and
rehabilitation in a Drug Rehabilitation Center under the supervision of the Dangerous Drugs
Board and were discharged thereafter

3. Suspension of sentence of a Minor First Offender

a). A minor is one who is over 15 at the time of the commission of the offense but below 18 at
the time of sentencing

b). The suspension is discretionary upon the court. Contra the Family Court Law ( RA 8369)
which provides that the suspension is mandatory)

c). The minor is placed under the supervision of the Dangerous Drugs Board and is for a period
ranging from 6 to 18 months

d). Upon favorable recommendation by the Board the court shall discharge the accused and
dismiss all the proceedings

e). All records shall be expunged and the minor shall not be criminal liable for perjury for
concealment or misrepresentation of refusal to acknowledge or recite any fact concerning his
case.

F. Provisions to expedite drug cases:

1. The Preliminary Investigation shall be terminated within 30 days from filing and the
Information hall be filed within 24 hours from the termination of the investigation

2. Trial shall be terminated not later than 60 days from ate of filing of the Information

3. The decisions shall be rendered within 15 days from submission for decision

G. Miscellaneous Provisions:

1. Requirement of a Mandatory Drug Test in the following:

a).. Application and renewal of drivers license

b). Application for firearms license or permit to carry

c). Annually for Officers and members of the AFP, PNP and other law enforcement agencies

d). For all persons charged before the Prosecutors Office for an offenses punishable by
imprisonment of not less than 6 years and one day

e). For all candidates for public office whether appointive or elective, national or local

2. Requirement of a Random Drug test

a). For high school and college students with parental consent and subject to the rules and
regulations of the student handbook

b). For officer and employees of public and private offices subject to the companys work rules
and regulations

3. Strengthening and Professionalization of the Fight against Drug Menace:

a). Creating of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency ( PDEA) as the implementing arm of
the Dangerous Drugs Board

b). the NARCOTICS group fo the other law enforcement agencies are abolished

c. Establishment of a PDEA ACADEMY which shall be responsible for rte recruitment and
training of PDEA agents and personnel and whose graduates shall comprise the operating units
of the PDEA

H. Principles:

1. Drug cases are where the principles of Instigation and Entrapment are most often applied

Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had no intention to
commit, in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of ways
and means in order to trap or capture a lawbreaker.

Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an offense originated from the
inducer and not the accused who had no intention to commit the crime and would not have
committed it were it not for the initiatives by the inducer. In entrapment, the criminal intent or
design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused; the law
enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and
schemes.

In instigation, the law enforcers act as active co-principals. Instigation leads to the acquittal of
the accused, while entrapment does not bar prosecution and conviction. (People v Romeo
Dansico)

2. Buy-bust operations are recognized as one of the most effective means of arresting criminals
in flagranti. Where the arrest is due to a buy-bust the presentation of the buy-money is not
essential, and as a general rule, the identification and presentation of the civilian informer is
considered privileged

3. If the accused is a CICL and the penalty is Life Imprisonment, said penalty shall be
understood to be Reclusion Perpetua thereby the minor is still entitled to all the beneficial
effects arising from his minority, such as the reduction of the penalty by degrees

The presentation in evidence of the buy-bust money is not indispensable for the conviction of
an accused provided that the sale of marijuana is adequately proven by the prosecution.
(People vs. Pascual, 208 SCRA 393)

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.
-What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of
corpus delicti. (People vs. Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009)

DIFFERENTIATE PROSECUTION FOR ILLEGAL SALE FROM PROSECUTION FOR

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be
established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must be shown that (1) the
accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated
drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. People vs. Darisan, G.R. No. 176151,
January 30, 2009

Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of
the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and
the final disposition. (People vs. Ruiz Garcia, G.R. No.173480 February 25, 2009)

c. Is strict compliance with the prescribed procedure essential?

Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required. The Court recognized the following
links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation:

first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;

third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and
fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist
to the court. People vs. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010

Mere lapses in procedures need not invalidate a seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items can be shown to have been preserved. However, the failure to follow the
procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained. The
justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The court cannot presume what
these grounds are or that they even exist. (People vs.Guzman)
The presumption of regular performance of duty is not conclusive in chain of custody cases and
cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.
RA 9165

Buy-bust Operation (Sec 5)

...

We therefore stress that the "objective" test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of
the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial
contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal
drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not
through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the "buy-bust" money, and
the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the
subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced
to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time, however,
examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accuseds
predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency,
recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts should look at all
factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are
relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement. (People vs De Guzman, G.R.
No. 151205)

Elements (Sec 5)

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the
proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
evidence of corpus delicti. (People vs Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940)

Elements (Sec 11)

The elements necessary for the prosecution 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.[19] Elucidating on the nature of this offense, the Court in People v.
Tira wrote: x x x This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential
element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess
(animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession,
but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate
physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession
exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right
to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or
control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control
and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another. (People
vs Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777)
Actual vs. Constructive Possession

Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive
possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or
control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exits when the drug is under
the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The
accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place
where the contraband is located, is shared with another. (People vs Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No.
139301)

Intent to possess

Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-
exclusive possession would not exonerate the accused. Such fact of possession may be proved
by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However,
the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of
the drug in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drug. Since
knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he
exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that
the dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or
within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. (People vs Huang Zhen
Hua, G.R. No. 139301)

Presumption of intent to possess

In the case at bar, appellant was caught in actual possession of a prohibited drug which he
could not show was duly authorized by law. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is a
prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on appellants part. As held by this Court in U.S. v.
Bandoc, the finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the premises of the house of the
accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in
the absence of a satisfactory explanation. (People vs Danila Cruz, G.R. No 185381)

Bondad vs. People (Sec 21)

IN FINE, as the failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements of the law compromised
the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against
appellant, his acquittal is in order. (Bondad vs People, G.R. No 173804)

Preservation of Integrity of Seized Items

It is very clear from the language of the law that there are exceptions to the requirements.
Therefore, contrary to appellants assertions, Sec. 21 need not be followed with pedantic rigor. It
has been settled that non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accuseds arrest illegal
or the items seized/confiscated from the accused inadmissible. What is essential is "the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." (Danilo Cruz case)
* Follow Sec 21 to preserve the integrity of the items

Chain of Custody

As held by the Court in Malillin v. People, the testimonies of all persons who handled the
specimen are important to establish the chain of custody. Thus, the prosecution offered the
testimony of PO3 Arago, the police officer who first handled the dangerous drug. The testimony
of P/SInsp. Fermindoza, who conducted the examination on the dangerous drug, was, however,
dispensed with after the public prosecutor and the defense counsel stipulated that the
specimens submitted tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride and that the said
specimens were regularly examined by the said witness. (Danilo Cruz case)

People vs Marcelino

Here, the chain of custody was established through the following links: (1) SPO1 Dela Cruz
marked the seized sachet with "MDC-1" for the sachet that was the subject of the buy-bust, and
"MDC-2" for the sachet found on accused-appellants person; (2) a request for laboratory
examination of the seized items "MDC-1" and "MDC-2" was signed by Police Senior Inspector
Arthur Felix Asis; (3) the request and the marked items seized were received by the Bulacan
Provincial Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-628-02 confirmed that the marked
items seized from accused-appellant were shabu; and (5) the marked items were offered in
evidence as Exhibits "C-1" and "C-2." (People vs Marcelino, G.R. No 189278)

SJS vs Dangerous Drug Board & PDEA

SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing.Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government
forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the
DOH to safeguard the quality of the test results. x x x The drug testing shall employ, among
others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as
well as the type of drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening
test. x x x The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing:
xxxx

(c) Students of secondary and tertiary schools.Students of secondary and tertiary schools
shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations as contained in the schools student
handbook and with notice to the parents, undergo a random drug testing x x x;

(d) Officers and employees of public and private offices.Officers and employees of public and
private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test
as contained in the companys work rules and regulations, x x x for purposes of reducing the
risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall
be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to
the provisions of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law;
xxxx
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutors office with a criminal offense having an
imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and one (1) day shall undergo
a mandatory drug test;

(g) All candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local
government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.

In addition to the above stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for
dangerous drugs use shall be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act. (SJS vs
Dangerous Drug Board & PDEA, G.R. No 157870)

*SJS questioned the constitutionality C-G of Sec 36

Students Constitutional

Guided by Vernonia and Board of Education, the Court is of the view and so holds that the
provisions of RA 9165 requiring mandatory, random, and suspicion less drug testing of students
are constitutional. Indeed, it is within the prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a
condition for admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and
policies. To be sure, the right to enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable, and
equitable requirements.

The Court can take judicial notice of the proliferation of prohibited drugs in the country that
threatens the well-being of the people, particularly the youth and school children who usually
end up as victims. Accordingly, and until a more effective method is conceptualized and put in
motion, a random drug testing of students in secondary and tertiary schools is not only
acceptable but may even be necessary if the safety and interest of the student population,
doubtless a legitimate concern of the government, are to be promoted and protected. To
borrow from Vernonia, [d]eterring drug use by our Nations schoolchildren is as important as
enhancing efficient enforcement of the Nations laws against the importation of drugs; the
necessity for the State to act is magnified by the fact that the effects of a drug-infested school
are visited not just upon the users, but upon the entire student body and faculty. Needless to
stress, the random testing scheme provided under the law argues against the idea that the
testing aims to incriminate unsuspecting individual students. (SJS case)

Employees in the Private Sector Constitutional

Taking into account the foregoing factors, i.e., the reduced expectation of privacy on the part of
the employees, the compelling state concern likely to be met by the search, and the well-defined
limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we
hold that the challenged drug test requirement is, under the limited context of the case,
reasonable and, ergo, constitutional. (SJS case)

Government official & Employees Constitutional

Like their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and employees also labor
under reasonable supervision and restrictions imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws
on public officers, all enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. And if
RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees, the more reason that it
should pass the test for civil servants, who, by constitutional command, are required to be
accountable at all times to the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and
efficiency. (SJS case)

Persons Charged (6 years & 1 day) Unconstitutional

To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test
as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug testing in
this case would violate a persons right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the
Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate themselves.
(SJS case)

Candidates for Public Office amendment to the Constitution (unconstitutional)

Viewed, therefore, in its proper context, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and the implementing
COMELEC Resolution add another qualification layer to what the 1987 Constitution, at the
minimum, requires for membership in the Senate. Whether or not the drug-free bar set up under
the challenged p

rovision is to be hurdled before or after election is really of no moment, as getting elected would
be of little value if one cannot assume office for non-compliance with the drug-testing
requirement.

It may of course be argued, in defense of the validity of Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, that the
provision does not expressly state that non-compliance with the drug test imposition is a
disqualifying factor or would work to nullify a certificate of candidacy. This argument may be
accorded plausibility if the drug test requirement is optional. But the particular section of the law,
without exception, made drug-testing on those covered mandatory, necessarily suggesting that
the obstinate ones shall have to suffer the adverse consequences for not adhering to the
statutory command. And since the provision deals with candidates for public office, it stands to
reason that the adverse consequence adverted to can only refer to and revolve around the
election and the assumption of public office of the candidates. Any other construal would reduce
the mandatory nature of Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 into a pure jargon without meaning and effect
whatsoever. (SJS case)

RA 10591

On May 29, 2013, the President of the Philippines approved into law Republic Act No. 10591 otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act. The law recognizes the right of its qualified
citizens to self-defense through the use of firearms and regulates the ownership, possession, carrying, manufacture,
dealing in and importation of firearms, ammunition, or parts thereof, in order to provide legal support to law
enforcement agencies in their campaign against crime, stop the proliferation of illegal firearms or weapons and the
illegal manufacture of firearms or weapons, ammunition and parts thereof.
The law did not entirely wipe off Presidential Decree No. 1866 as well as its amendatory law, Republic Act No. 8294.
Only Sections 1, 2, 5, and 7 of PD 1866 and Section 6 of RA 8294 were repealed. This means that the provisions of
these laws pertaining to explosives were retained and, as such, the unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
disposition or possession of explosives such as hand grenade, rifle grenade, and other explosives, continues to be
punishable under the old law.

Some Notable Features of the New Law

Some of the notable features of the new firearms law are: (1) it classified the firearms according to power, and
increased the penalties for offenses relative thereto; (2) it provides separate and lighter penalties for offenses
pertaining to ammunition; (3) it likewise provides a separate and lighter penalties for offenses pertaining to major
parts of firearms; (4) it defines and punishes new offenses relating to firearms and ammunition; (5) it provides for
qualifying circumstances for the offense of possession or acquisition of firearms, and aggravating circumstances for
the use of loose firearms in the commission of a crime; (6) it regulates ownership and possession of firearms and
ammunition by qualified citizens; (7) it regulates the registration and licensing of firearms; (8) it treats use of an
imitation firearm in the commission of a crime as a real firearm; and (9) subject to an exception, it limits the
registration of small arms only to licensed citizens or juridical entities for ownership, possession and concealed carry.

Classification of firearms.

Under the new firearms law, firearms are classified into: (1) Small arms; (2) ClassA Light Weapons; and
(3) ClassB Light Weapons. Parenthetically, under the old law, firearms are classified as low-powered and high-
powered, in addition to explosives, and providing single penalties for each.

Small arms refer to firearms intended to be or primarily designed for individual use or that which is generally
considered to mean a weapon intended to be fired from the hand or shoulder, which are not capable of fully automatic
bursts of discharge such as: (1) handgun, which is a firearm intended to be fired from the hand, and it includes a
pistol and a revolver; (2) rifle, which is a shoulder firearm or designed to be fired from the shoulder that can discharge
a bullet through a rifled barrel by different actions of loading, which may be classified as lever, bolt, or self-loading;
and (3) shotgun, which is a weapon designed, made or intended to fire a number of ball shots or a single projectile
through a smooth bore by the action or energy from burning gunpowder.

ClassA Light Weapons refer to self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, submachine guns, assault rifles and
light machine guns not exceeding calibre 7.62MM which have fully automatic mode.

ClassB Light Weapons refer to weapons designed for use by two (2) or more persons serving as crew, or
rifles and machine guns exceeding calibre 7.62MM such as heavy machine guns, handheld under barrel and
mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers
of anti-tank missiles and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a calibre
of less than 100MM.

Offenses Punished.
While the old law punished basically two (2) offenses relating to firearms and explosives, without regard to the nature
of the offense whether it be possession, disposition, acquisition, manufacture or sale, the new law separated the
offenses of acquisition or possession from the offenses of manufacture, importation, or sale of firearms and
ammunition and provides a higher penalty to the latter.

The following are the offenses punished under the new law:

AOffenses relating to acquisition or possession:

(1) Unlawful acquisition or possession of firearms;

(2) Unlawful acquisition or possession of ammunition;

(3) Unlawful acquisition or possession of major parts of a firearm;

(4) Buying or possession of stolen part or material from a company engaged in the manufacture and sell of firearms
and ammunition, when the buyer or possessor is aware that such part or material was stolen (Sec. 32, par. 3);

It must be noted that the offense of unlawful possession or acquisition of ammunition of ClassA Light Weapon
punished under Sec. 28 (i) was repeated under paragraph (g), which provide a lighter penalty therefor.

BOffenses relating to manufacture, importation or sale:

(1) Unlawful manufacture, importation, sale or disposition of firearms, ammunition, major part of a firearm or
ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the manufacture of a firearm, ammunition
or major part thereof (Sec. 32);

(2) Arms smuggling (Sec. 33);

(3) Unlawful taking, sale or disposition by labourer, worker or employee of a licensed firearms dealer parts of firearms
or ammunition which the company manufactures and sells, and other materials used by the company in the
manufacture or sale of firearms or ammunition (Sec. 32);

It is worthy of note that the possession of any machinery, tool or instrument used directly in the manufacture of
firearms, ammunition, or major parts thereof by any person whose business, employment or activity does not lawfully
deal with the possession of such article shall be prima facie evidence that such article is intended to be used in the
unlawful or illegal manufacture of firearms, ammunition or parts thereof. It is doubtful, however, whether possession of
such machinery, tool or instrument is punished by the first paragraph of Section 32. What is punished by said
paragraph is the unlawful manufacture, importation, sale or disposition of machinery, tool or instrument. It hardly
includes as punishable intent to use machinery, tool or instruments intended to be used for the manufacture of
firearms and ammunitions.

COther related offenses:

(1) Carrying of firearms outside of residence without legal authority (Sec. 31);
(2) Tampering, Obliteration or Alteration of Firearms Identification (Sec. 34);

(3) Planting of firearms, ammunition or parts thereof as evidence (Sec. 38);

(4) Failure to notify lost or stolen firearm (Sec. 40);

(5) Illegal transfer or registration of firearm (Sec. 41); and

(6) Fraudulent facilitating the registration of a firearm by a public officer (Sec. 41, 2ndpar.).

Qualifying or Aggravating Circumstances.

Circumstances relating to possession. The offenses of acquisition or possession of short arms and/or Class
A Light Weapons may be qualified by the possession of three or more short arms or ClassA Light Weapons, in
which case the penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.

Illegal possession of short arms or ClassA Light Weapons may also be qualified by any or combination of the
following conditions namely:

(1) When the firearm is loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;

(2) When the firearm is fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit the target such as
thermal weapon sight (TWS) and the like;

(3) When it is fitted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer;

(4) When it is accompanied with an extra barrel; and

(5) When it is converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts.

In such cases, the penalty shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided for offense, and the offense may be
called Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms.

Circumstances relating to use.The use of a loose firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable
under the Revised Penal Code or other special laws, such as, for example, murder or homicide, shall be considered
as an aggravating circumstance. However, if the crime committed is penalized by law with a maximum penalty lower
than the penalty for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for the latter shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty for
the crime charged. On the other hand, if the penalties are equal, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
shall be imposed in addition to the penalty imposed against the offender for the crime committed (Sec. 29).
Notably, if the firearm used in the commission of a crime is licensed, the use of such firearm shall not be considered
as an aggravating circumstance. If there be any violation of the law, it shall be treated as a distinct and separate
offense (Sec. 29), as, for instance, carrying of the firearm outside of residence without authority therefor.

Penalties.

The penalties for the various offenses punished by the law are as follows:

A. As to simple possession or acquisition of:

1. Small arms Prision mayor in its medium period.

2. ClassA light weapon Prision mayor in its maximum

period.

3. ClassB light weapon Reclusion perpetua.

4. Major part of small arm Prision mayor in its minimum

period.

5. Major part of ClassA light Prision mayor in its medium period.

weapon

6. Major part of ClassB light Prision mayor in its maximum

weapon period.

7. Ammunition of small arm Prision mayor in its minimum

 period.

8. Ammunition of ClassA light Prision mayor in its medium period.

weapon

9. Ammunition of ClassB light Prision mayor in its maximum

weapon period.

Note must be taken of the fact that possession or acquisition of ammunition of ClassA light weapon was
twice mentioned in the law, that is, Sec. 28(g) and Sec. 28(i). It is, however, believed that the insertion of the words
ClassA light weapon in par. (g) is a clerical error.

Moreover, if the violation on possession or acquisition of ammunition is committed by the same person charged
with unlawful possession or acquisition of firearm, the possession of ammunition is absorbed in the unlawful
possession of the firearm.

B. As to qualified possession or acquisition of:

1. Three or more small arms or Reclusion temporal to Reclusion

ClassA light weapon perpetua.

C. As to manufacture, importation, sale or disposition of firearms, etc.:

1. Unlawful manufacture, Reclusion temporal to Reclusion

importation, sale or disposition of perpetua.
firearm, ammunition, or major part
of firearm or ammunition, or
machinery, tool or instrument
intended to be used for in the
manufacture of firearm,
ammunition or major part thereof

2. Unlawful taking, sale, or Prision mayor in its minimum period

disposal by labourer, worker, or to prision mayor in its medium
employee of licensed firearms period.
dealer of parts of firearms or
ammunition which the company
manufactures and sells, and other
 materials used by the company in
the manufacture and sale of
firearms and ammunition

3. Arms smuggling Reclusion perpetua.

D. As to other offenses:

1. Carrying of firearms outside of Prision correccional and fine of

residence without legal authority P10,000.00

2. The buyer or possessor of such Prision mayor in its minimum period

stolen part or material who is to prision mayor in its medium
aware of the fact of stealing period.

3. Tampering, obliterating or Prision correccional to Prision

Altering of Firearms Identification mayor in its minimum period.

4. Planting of evidence by ordinary Prision mayor in its maximum

person period.

5. Planting of evidence by public Reclusion perpetua.

officer

6. Failure to notify lost or stolen 10,000.00 pesos fine.

firearm or light weapon

7. Illegal transfer/registration of Prision correccional.

firearms
 8. Facilitating registration of Prision correccional.
firearm through fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation or submission of
falsified documents

Other Matters.

The other notable features of the new law are the following:

1. Use of imitation firearm. An imitation firearm used in the commission of a crime shall be

considered a real firearm and the offender shall be punished in accordance with the new law.

An imitation firearm refers to a replica of a firearm, or other device that is so substantially

similar in coloration and overall appearance to an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable

person to believe that such imitation firearm is a real firearm (Sec. 3(q)).

2. Custodia legis. During the pendency of any case filed in violation of the Act, seized firearm,

ammunition, or parts thereof, machinery, tool or instruments shall remain in the custody of the

court (Sec. 36). This provision runs afoul with ordinary criminal procedure in which object

evidence shall remain under the custody of the prosecution until it is offered in evidence after

the termination of its presentation of testimonial evidence.

Registration of firearms.

Only small arms may be registered by licensed citizens or licensed juridical entities for ownership, possession
and concealed carry. However, private individuals who already have licenses to possess ClassA light weapons
upon the effectivity of the Act shall not be deprived of the privilege to continue possessing the same and renewing the
licenses therefor (Sec. 10). The licensed citizen or juridical entity shall register his purchased firearms with the
Firearms and Explosive Office of the Philippine National Police (Sec. 11). The license granted shall include the
license to possess ammunition with a maximum of fifty (50) rounds for each registered firearms (Sec. 12). Except a
certified gun collector, the maximum number of registered firearms a qualified citizen may own and possession is
fifteen (15) (Sec. 9).

Qualifications for the issuance of firearms license.

 In order to qualify and acquire a license to own firearms and ammunition, the applicant must be: (1) Filipino
citizen; (2) at least twenty-one (21) years old; and (3) has gainful work, occupation or business or has filed an Income
Tax Return (ITR) for the preceding year.

In addition, the applicant shall submit various certifications from the appropriate authorities (see Sec. 4).

Conditions for the issuance of permit to carry firearms.

A permit to carry firearms outside of residence shall be issued by the Chief of the PNP or his duly authorized
representative to any qualified person whose life is under actual threat or his life is in imminent danger due to the
nature of her profession, occupation of business. The burden of proving actual threat lies with the applicant by
submitting a threat assessment certificate from the PNP.

For purposes of the Act, the following professionals are considered to be in imminent danger due to the nature
of their profession, occupation or business: (a) Members of the Philippine Bar; (b) CPAs; (c) Accredited Media
Practitioners; (d) Cashiers, Bank Tellers; (e) Priests, Ministers, Rabbi, Imams; (f) Physicians and Nurses; (g)
Engineers; and (h) Businessmen, who by the nature of their business or undertaking are exposed to high risk of being
targets of criminal elements.

1. Antique Firearms-75 years, National Museum of PH as relic, novel, rare and

bizarre
2. Demilitarized firearms-deliberately made incapable of performing its main
function
3. Forfeited Firearms- subject to forfeiture by court order or for disposition by
FEO- abandoned (5years wala nakuha), surrendered, confiscated, or revoked
4. Imitation firearms- replica
5. Loose Firearms- unregistered firearms, stolen, illegally manufactured
6. Tampered, obliterated or altered firearms- serial number or identification or
ballistic characteristics are intentionally tampered
Section 5. Ownership of Firearms and Ammunition by a Juridical Entity. A juridical
person maintaining its own security force may be issued a regular license to own
and possess firearms and ammunition under the following conditions:
(a) It must be Filipino-owned and duly registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC);
(b) It is current, operational and a continuing concern;
(c) It has completed and submitted all its reportorial requirements to the SEC;
and
(d) It has paid all its income taxes for the year, as duly certified by the Bureau
of Internal Revenue.
In order to qualify and acquire a license to own and possess a firearm or firearms and ammunition,
the applicant must be a Filipino citizen, at least twenty-one (21) years old and has gainful work,
occupation or business or has filed an Income Tax Return (ITR) for the preceding year as proof of
income, profession, business or occupation.

In addition, the applicant shall submit the following certification issued by appropriate authorities
attesting the following:

(a) The applicant has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;

(b) The applicant has passed the psychiatric test administered by a PNP-accredited
psychologist or psychiatrist;

(c) The applicant has passed the drug test conducted by an accredited and authorized drug
testing laboratory or clinic;0

(d) The applicant has passed a gun safety seminar which is administered by the PNP or a
registered and authorized gun club;

(e) The applicant has filed in writing the application to possess a registered firearm which
shall state the personal circumstances of the applicant;

(f) The applicant must present a police clearance from the city or municipality police office;
and

(g) The applicant has not been convicted or is currently an accused in a pending criminal
case before any court of law for a crime that is punishable with a penalty of more than two
(2) years.

For purposes of this Act, an acquittal or permanent dismissal of a criminal case before the courts of
law shall qualify the accused thereof to qualify and acquire a license.

Death or Disability of Licensee. Upon the death or legal disability of the holder of a firearm license,
it shall be the duty of his/her next of kin, nearest relative, legal representative, or other person who
shall knowingly come into possession of such firearm or ammunition, to deliver the same to the FEO
of the PNP or Police Regional Office, and such firearm or ammunition shall be retained by the police
custodian pending the issuance of a license and its registration in accordance, with this Act. The
failure to deliver the firearm or ammunition within six (6) months after the death or legal disability of
the licensee shall render the possessor liable for illegal possession of the firearm.