You are on page 1of 15

MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

on

THE COMPREHENSIVE
DANGEROUS
DRUGS ACT OF 2002
R.A. No. 9165
(Repealing R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as
The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972)

For:
ATTY. JOSE ARTURO C. DE CASTRO
Professor, Special Penal Laws

By:
KRISTINE ABEGAILE R. CLAVIO
KRISHA FABIA
ABRAME-LIONEL GAMALIEL A. OLYMPIA
ALLAN CARLO H. SOLLER
3rd Year, Section D
Ateneo de Manila University Law School

1. In a buy-bust operation, prohibited and regulated drugs (shabu and


marijuana) were found under the bed, in the inner room of the house

of Orlando, while he was sleeping. An information was filed against


him for the possession, control and custody of different substances.
After arraignment and trial, the court may convict Orlando of:
a. possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, in relation to Section 20,
of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for his possession of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, ONLY;
b. violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug, ONLY;
c. possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, in relation to Section 20,
of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for his possession of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, OR violation of
Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for his possession of
marijuana, a prohibited drug;
d. possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, in relation to Section 20,
of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for his possession of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug, AND violation of
Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for his possession of
marijuana, a prohibited drug;
e. none of the above. Orlando should be acquitted because the Information
is defective. Possession of one prohibited substance is a separate and
distinct crime from possession of another prohibited substance, although
in the same place and occasion.
Correct Answer: d
Source:
G.R. No. 139615, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v AMADEO TIRA
and CONNIE TIRA, May 28, 2004
One may be charged for possession of marijuana SEPARATE from
possession of shabu (methamphetamine hydrocloride), although seized in
the same place and occasion.
The crime of violation of Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended, for illegal possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana, a
prohibited drug, is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. x x x
Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the
imposable penalty of possession of a regulated drug, less than 200
grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion
perpetua. x x x
The Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The
appellants should have filed a motion to quash the Information
under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court before their
arraignment. They failed to do so.
Page 2 of 15

Hence, under Rule 120, Section 3: When two or more offenses are
charged in a single complaint or information but the accused fails to
object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many
offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty
for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law
in each offense.

2. In a buy-bust operation, prohibited and regulated drug (marijuana)


was found in the masters bedroom, stashed inside the second deck
of a wooden cabinet, in Orlandos house in Abra co-owned by him
and his brother Irish. At the time of seizure, Orlando was busy
negotiating deals with business partners in Maguindanao. An
information was filed against him for the possession, control and
custody of marijuana. After arraignment and trial, may Orlando be
convicted of possession of marijuana under Section 8, in relation to
Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended?
a. No. Orlando was absent during the search. At that time, he was busy
negotiating deals in Maguindanao. Hence, in no way, could he be in
possession of marijuana found inside the masters bedroom of his house in
Abra.
b. No. Orlando was not caught in flagrante delicto possessing the illicit drugs.
Hence, he may not be held liable.
c. No. Orlando was merely a co-owner of the house. Hence, he may not be
held liable.
d. Yes. The finding of illicit drugs in the house owned by Orlando raised the
presumption of knowledge and criminal intent.
e. Yes. The finding of illicit drugs in the house owned by Orlando raised the
presumption of knowledge and intent to possess.
Correct Answer: e
Source:
G.R. No. 170837, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v DEXTER TORRES
y DELA CRUZ, September 12, 2006.
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 therefrom.
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
Page 3 of 15

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.

3. In a buy-bust operation, operatives found inside Orlandos veranda


one plant of marijuana in a flower pot. After arraignment and trial,
may Orlando be convicted of an offense?
a. Yes. For violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No.
6425, as amended, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug;
b. Yes. For violation of Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No.
6425, as amended, for cultivation or culture of marijuana, a prohibited
drug;
c. No. Orlando was not culturing marijuana under Section 16 of Rep. Act No.
6425, as amended. Since there is no plantation to speak of, but only a
flower pot;
d. No. Orlando was not the one who planted the marijuana in a flower pot. It
was given to him as a gift. Hence, he may not be held liable for cultivating
marijuana under Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended;
e. No. Orlando was in good faith. He had no knowledge of the fact that the
plant given was marijuana.
Correct Answer: b
Source:
Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.
Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs need not be
in a plantation. One plant of marijuana in a flower pot is included.
Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are
Sources Thereof--The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos f1~500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos f-l~10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
Page 4 of 15

who shall plant, cultivate or culture marijuana, opium poppy or any


other plant, regardless of quantity, which is or may hereafter be
classified as a dangerous drug or as a source from which any
dangerous drug may be manufactured or derived. x x x
4. In a buy-bust operation, Orlando was accosted selling dried
marijuana fruiting tops outside of his residence to Russelle. On the
same occasion, found also in his possession were dried marijuana
leaves wrapped in a newspaper. An information was filed against him
for the possession, control, and custody as well as illegal sale of
marijuana, a prohibited drug. After arraignment and trial, the court
may convict Orlando of:
a. violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug, ONLY;
b. violation of Sec 5, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended, for illegal sale of marijuana, a prohibited drug, ONLY;
c. violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug, OR violation
of Sec 5, in relation to Section 20, of the law, for illegal sale of marijuana,
a prohibited drug;
d. violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended, for his possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug, AND
violation of Sec 5, in relation to Section 20, of the law, for illegal sale of
marijuana, a prohibited drug;
e. none of the above. Orlando should be acquitted because of defective
information. There are two (2) separate and distinct crimes in the case at
bar: (1) possession and (2) illegal sale of prohibited drugs.
Correct Answer: d
Source: PEOPLE v. CATAN
One may be charged for sale of marijuana and a SEPARATE charge of
possession of another gram of marijuana which was not the subject of the
sale.
The general rule is that an Information must charge only one offense.
However, "when two (2) or more offenses are charged in a single
Information and the accused fails to object to it before trial, the Court
may convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and
impose on him the penalty for each and every one of them setting out
separately the findings of fact and law in each case" (Rule 120, Section
3, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure). In the proceedings at bar, the
records do not show that Appellant seasonably objected to the two
Page 5 of 15

offenses charged in a single Information. On the contrary, he merely


pleaded not guilty thereto during arraignment.
Under the circumstances, possession of marijuana, other than that
which was the object of the sale, having been also charged and
proved, his additional conviction therefor can withstand any challenge
from the defense.

5. In a buy-bust operation, Buboy, Gama and Krisha were found to be


confederating and conspiring with one another, to commit the
following unlawful acts: cultivate, manufacture, import, sell,
maintain a den and possess dangerous drugs. After arraignment and
trial, they may be convicted of:
a. Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts:
manufacture, importation, sale, maintenance of den and possession of
dangerous drugs;
b. Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts: cultivation,
importation, sale, maintenance of den and possession of dangerous drugs;
c. Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts: cultivation,
manufacture, sale, maintenance of den and possession of dangerous
drugs;
d. Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts: cultivation,
manufacture, importation, maintenance of den and possession of
dangerous drugs;
e. Attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts: cultivation,
manufacture, importation, sale, and maintenance of den;
Correct answer: e
Source:
Section 26, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.
The law does not include possession as being the subject of an attempt or
conspiracy.
Attempt or Conspiracy.--Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the
following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed
for the commission of the same as provided under this Act.

Page 6 of 15

(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/ or controlled precursor and


essential chemical;
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution
and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical;
(c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous drug is
used in any form;
(d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/ or controlled precursor
and essential chemical; and
(e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous
drugs.

6. Rigel is an owner of a club called Siemba. He pays several DJs to


perform in his club every night. Siemba has gained popularity as one
of the hippest and most happening places in Manila. Krisha, one of
the DJs in Siemba, sells cocaine to her clients. She sells it in the
clubs restroom and allows her clients to take the drugs there as
well. Rigel has repeatedly reprimanded her for this, but he still
allows her to perform since she is one of the best DJs in town, and
her music draws in many people. News spread that Krisha sells
cocaine in Siembas bathroom. Is Rigel guilty of the maintaining a
drug den under the Dangerous Drugs Act?
a. No, Rigel has repeatedly reprimanded Krisha for her actions. This is proof
that there was no consent given for the sale of cocaine. Rigel should not
be made liable for the crimes of his employees.
b. No, Rigel merely tolerated Krishas actions. There was no intent on Rigels
part to use the clubs bathroom for the use of cocaine. At most, he is
merely a protector/ coddler of the drug dealer.
c. Yes, Rigel is guilty because he tolerated the use of cocaine in the clubs
bathroom, which has gained reputation as a place where people use
drugs. He has a duty to ensure that his drugs are neither sold nor used in
the clubs premises.
d. Yes, Rigel is guilty because Siembas popularity was due to the sale of
cocaine in the bathroom.
e. None of the above.
Page 7 of 15

Correct Answer: c
Source:
G.R. Nos. 136149-51, People v. Walpan Ladjaalam, September 19,
2000.
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 facts and
circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house,
or its general reputation among police officers That the appellant did not
deny the ownership of the house and its extension lent credence to the
prosecutions story.
He is not a protector. Section 3 (ee) provides the definition for a coddler. A
coddler is one who consents to the use of drugs AND uses his influence to
protect the drug dealer from the proper authorities. Rigel, in this case,
used no influence to protect Krisha from the authorities. His INTENT is
immaterial since the Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law.

7. Who is the operator of the drug den? Krisha or Rigel?


a. Krisha, because she allowed her clients to use the restroom and there was
no consent on Rigels part to use the bathroom for that purpose.
Furthermore, she was the one who drew the persons into the clubs
bathroom.
b. Krisha because the operator of the drug den is necessarily the seller of the
prohibited drugs and Rigel never sold cocaine.
c. Rigel, because he is the owner of the club and he consented to the use of
the bathroom as a drug den. Krisha was the seller of the drugs.
d. Rigel because he is responsible for Krishas actions
e. The bathroom was not used as a drug den. A public place cannot be
considered as a drug den.
Correct Answer: c
Source:
Sec.3, par. L; Sec. 3 par.P of of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.
The operator of the drug den is the person who owns or maintains it. The
drug den is the place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for
illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form.
Page 8 of 15

8. Krissy is one of Manilas most famous celebrities. She went to


Syemba to mingle and watch DJ Krisha perform. She began flirting
with a boy named Jason. He told her about a gossip that Krisha was
selling cocaine in Syembas bathroom. Curious, Krissy visited the
bathroom. Unfortunately, there was a raid and Krissy was arrested
along with Krisha and the cocaine users. Is Krissy considered a
Visitor of a Drug Den?
a. No. A visitor of the drug den must be aware of the nature of the place and
knowingly visit the same. In this case, Krissy was not certain that the
bathroom was, in fact, being used as a drug den. She was only
knowledgeable of the rumor surrounding it.
b. No, Krissys liability cannot be proved with evidence. She could have just
wanted to use the bathroom to wash her hands.
c. No. Since the drug den is a public place, nobody can be considered as a
visitor of a drug den.
d. Yes. Krissy was told that the bathroom was being used as drug den and
she still visited it. The Dangerous Drugs Act is a special law and therefore,
intent is immaterial.
e. Yes. It is difficult to prove that she did not know of the nature of the
bathroom.
Correct Answer: a

Source:
Sec.7 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.
A visitor of a drug den is any person who is aware of the nature of the
place as such and shall knowingly visit the same.

9. Allan was an undercover police officer in a buy/bust operation to


catch Armand Ma-Sayad, a well-known marijuana dealer. He agreed
to meet up with Armand at SM Megamall. He then gave the money to
Armand but before Armand could give him the marijuana bag, he ran
off with the money. The police officers later arrested him and found
one marijuana stick in his possession. Can he be charged of violation
of the Dangerous Drugs Act?
a. No. there was no intent on his part to sell the marijuana.
Page 9 of 15

b. No. There sale of marijuana was not consummated. At most, he can be


charged with possession of dangerous drugs.
c. Yes. There was a valid buy/bust operation in this case. There is a
presumption that he wanted to sell the marijuana stick because it was
found in his possession and he accepted the money.
d. Yes. There was intent to sell marijuana, as proven by the fact that he
agreed to meet up with Allan at SM Megamall.
e. Yes. The fact that Armand ran away with the money and avoided arrest is
proof that he was guilty.
Correct Answer: b
Source:
People of the Philippines vs. Salvadro y Agliam
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof
of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense; to wit (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore, which the
prosecution has satisfactorily established.
In this case, there was no delivery of the thing sold. Therefore, there was
no sale of dangerous drugs.

10.
What are essential for the conviction of the accused? A) the
marked money, B) the presentation of the informant, C) Proof of Sale
D) Presentation in Court of the Substance Seized.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

All are essential


None are essential
Only C and D
Only A, B and C
Only D.

Correct Answer: c
Sources:
People v. Romeo del Mundo, December 6, 2006; People v. Salvador
Dumlao y Agliam
A is not essential, the presentation of the marked money is not essential
for the conviction of the accused.
B is not essential.
Page 10 of 15

C and D are Essential. What is material is the proof that the transaction or
sale actually took place, coupled with presentation in court of the
substance seized as evidence.

11.
What is/are the drug/s that was/were formerly included in R.A.
6425 which is/are also included in R.A. 9165?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Ecstacy
Marijuana
PMA
LSD
All of the above

Correct Answer: b
Source:
RA 6425, as amended by R.A. 9165 and Updated Penal Laws by
Prof. Oscar Pimentel

12.
Is a person charged under any of the provisions of RA 9165,
regardless of the imposable penalty, allowed to avail of the provision
of plea-bargaining?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Yes, if the person is over 18 years of age.


Yes, if the person is a minor.
Yes, if the person is insane.
All of the above.
None of the above.

Correct Answer: e
Source:
RA 6425, as amended by R.A. 9165 and Updated Penal Laws by
Prof. Oscar Pimentel
13.
Can a person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under
RA 9165, regardless of the penalty imposed, avail of the privilege
granted by the Probation law of PD No. 968?
Page 11 of 15

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Yes, if the person was a first time offender.


Yes, if the person was a minor.
Yes, even if the person was not minor and not a first time offender.
No, except minors who are first time offenders.
All of the above.

Correct Answer: d
Source:
RA 6425, as amended by R.A. 9165 and Updated Penal Laws by
Prof. Oscar Pimentel

14.
Who are the persons required to undergo mandatory drug
testing as mandated by RA 9165?
a. Applicants for drivers license, firearms license and permit to carry firearms
outside the residence.
b. Officers and members the military, police and other law enforcement
agencies
c. Members of paramilitary units and civilian volunteer organization.
d. All except a
e. All except c
Correct answer: e
Source:
RA 6425, as amended by R.A. 9165 and Updated Penal Laws by
Prof. Oscar Pimentel
15.
What is/are the act/s punishable under RA 9165?
a. Importation of any controlled precursor and essential chemical.
b. Organizing, managing, or acting as a financier of any of the illegal
activities penalized under Section 4 of the Law.
c. Acting as protector/coddler of anyone who violates Section 4 of the Law
d. b and c only.
e. c, a and b.
Correct answer: e
Source:
RA 6425, as amended by R.A. 9165 and Updated Penal Laws by
Prof. Oscar Pimentel

Page 12 of 15

Facts for Questions 16-19


Buboy will have his 18th birthday in a few weeks time. In preparation
for his birthday, he decided to go out to party in a bar somewhere in
Makati. He went there with his friends and opted to stay in the VIP
area. There, he met Lady Chrissie who offered him beer and after a
few bottles, he was offered E or Ecstacy. Engulfed by youths
curiosity, Buboy reluctantly accepted the offer and bought 4 tablets
for himself and for his friends. Lady Chrissie, an expert in drug
dealings, placed the tablets inside a small container and left it on
top of the table where Buboy and his friends were staying. Buboy
went to the wash room for a bit when the police suddenly raided the
bar, armed with a search warrant. Buboy immediately went back to
the VIP area and pocketed the tablets. He rushed back to the
washroom to flush it inside the toilet bowl when he was suddenly
arrested. Unfortunately, 1 tablet was left on top of the table where
Buboy and his friends were staying.
16.
Were the facts sufficient that Lady Chrissie will be held
accountable for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs?
a. No, the first element, that there is a consummated transaction or sale, is
missing. There could not have been any sale in this case because Lady
Chrissie has no intention at all to sell the tablets to Buboy.
b. No, the second element, the corpus delicti or the illicit drug, is missing. The
tablet left on top of the table was not in the possession of Buboy
c. No, the third element, that the buyer and seller can be identified, is
missing. Facts are not clear whether Lady Chrissie indeed sold the tablet to
Buboy
d. Yes, All the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are present.
e. Yes, Ecstacy is a prohibited drug under RA9165
Correct Answer: d. Here the illegal sale took place and the intention of the
seller is immaterial. Buboy has dominion and control over the drug after the
sale and the identity of the buyer and seller is ascertained
Source:
PEOPLE V DELA CRUZ GR. NO. 177222, OCTOBER 29, 2008
In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be
proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or
the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller
were identified. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the offense.

17.
Were the facts sufficient that Buboy may be held accountable
for the illegal possession of Dangerous Drugs?
Page 13 of 15

a. No, because he was not in possession of a regulated drug. The tablet left
on the table was not in his possession.
b. No, he was not freely and consciously possessing the drug because he was
intoxicated.
c. No, because he has no knowledge that the drug is a regulated drug.
d. Yes, All the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present.
e. Yes, All the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present
including criminal intent.
e. None of the above.
Correct Answer: d.
He was in possession of the tablet for after the sale was consummated, he
has total control over the tablets regardless of the place where it was found.
The fact that he bought it reluctantly proves that he has some inkling that he
is buying an illegal drug.
Criminal intent is not an essential element since Illegal possession is mala
prohibita.
Source:
PEOPLE V TORRES, G.R. NO. 170837, SEPTEMBER 12, 2006
To be liable for possession of regulated drugs, under Sec 16 RA 6425, the
following elements must concur: a) the accused is found in possession of a
regulated drug b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted
authorities c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated
drug.

18.
Statement 1: It was necessary for Buboy to have exclusive
possession or control over the table where they were staying for
conviction
Statement 2: Buboy is deemed to have in possession of the tablet
left on the table
a. Statement 1 is True while Statement 2 is False.
b. Statement 1 is False while Statement 2 is True.
c. Both Statements are True.
d. Both Statements are False.
Correct Answer: b, exclusive possession or control over the place where the
contraband is located is not necessary. Possession may either be actual or
Page 14 of 15

constructive. Here, buboy is in constructive possession even though the


tablet was left on top of the table since the area was under his dominion and
control. They were staying in a VIP area, away from other guests of the bar,
thus, he has dominion and control over the table where the tablet was found.
Source: People v Lagman G.R. No 168695, December 8, 2008

19.
Assuming that Lady Chrissie was convicted of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the penalty to be imposed will be:
a. Dependent on the quantity of the tablet found
b. Dependent on the availing aggravating and mitigating circumstances
c. Maximum imposed by law since Buboy was still a minor
c. Maximum imposed by law since Lady Chrissie has the essential element of
mens rea
Correct answer: c, buboy was still 17 when the incident happened. He went
out a few weeks before his 18th birthday.
Source: PEOPLE V SY, G.R. NO 185284, JUNE 22, 2009
The penalty for the sale of regulated drugs is based, as a rule on the quantity
thereof. The exception is where the victim is a minor or where the regulated
drug involved is the proximate cause of the death of the victim. In such
cases, the maximum penalty prescribed in Sec 15 RA 6425 as amended by
RA 7659 i.e. death, shall be imposed, regardless of the quantity of the
prohibited drugs involved.

Page 15 of 15

You might also like