Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
built or constructed for that purpose, or that it had been changed and
modified by the appellant Chua Lui so as to make it an "opium den," or
that it had any of the qualities, whatever they may be, of such a resort, or
that he intended to use it for any illicit purpose. There is no evidence in the
record showing or tending to show that Chua Lui was acquainted with any
gang of opium smugglers or persons connected therewith or with such
persons, or that he had ever been convicted of any violation of the Opium
Law. Even though all these things were true, it does not necessarily follow
that he is guilty of the crime charged. Persons may not be convicted on
general principles, but only on evidence which establishes the precise
charge lodged against them.
Also in the case of People vs. Ladjaalam, 395 Phil. 1, the Supreme
Court also rationalizes in this manner:
A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated
drugs are used in any form or are found. Its existence may be proved not
only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof of the facts
and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the
house, or its general reputation among police officers.
RA 10591.
The most failure made by the apprehending officers concerning the
documentation in Illegal Possession of Firearm is the making a REQUEST
before the Firearm and Explosive Unit or FESAGGSS whether or not the
respondent is a licensed holder of any firearm. This is an element of the crime
and failure to present any CERTIFICATION that the respondent is not a
license holder of any firearm will result to his acquittal. What thed Police
Officers usually do is to make a Request at the Crime laboratory for the
Forensic Examination of the seize3d Firearm. Although there is a PNP
National Memorandum or Circular concerning the examination of Firearm
seized in a certain crime, this is not an ELEMENT of Illegal Possession of
Firearm. Be strictly reminded of this.
RAPE CASES.
In some Rape cases filed in our office, theWomens Desk Officer failed to
specify the age of a minor victim and to secure the Birth Certificate of a mior
victim.
They also failed to particularly specify in the affidavit the place of the
commission of the crime, the date and the time, and the Particular acts
committed by the respondent. They just put it in the affidavit that the victim was
RAPED. You see, the particular acts performed by the respondent must be
specified in the affidavit because the word RAPE is a conclusion of law.
There are two ways of committing Rape under Article266-A and Article
266-B of the RPC.
FIRST, is the conventional type of Rape committed by a man against a
woman;
SECOND, is the one we referred to as RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT.
It is committed by ANY PERSON by inserting his penis into another persons
MOUTH or ANAL ORIFICE, or any INSTRUMENT or OBJECT, into the
GENITAL or ANAL ORIFICE of another person.
Under this type of RAPE, it may be committed by a man against a
woman; a man against a man; and a woman against a woman. So in the Affidavit
of the Complainant, it is necessary to state the particular acts committed by the
respondent not just stating in the affidavit that the victim was raped by the
respondent.
In one case, the complainant alleged that she was raped 32 times in
January, in February, in the month of March, April, so on and so forth. The
Desk Officer must make an account of the particular acts committed by the
respondent in a certain Place and on a certain date and on a certain time. Do not
just make allegations that the victim was raped