Skip to main content

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSELITO NOQUE y GOMEZ

G.R. No. 175319 January 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSELITO NOQUE y GOMEZ

Accused Joselito Noque sold 2.779 and 2. shabu’ and had in his possession and custody 679.215 grams of ‘shabu’. He avers that his conviction for the sale and possession of shabu, despite the fact that what was established and proven was the sale and possession of ephedrine, violated his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him since the charges in the Informations are for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride.

ISSUE: Was the accused right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him violated?

HELD: Accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations was not violated because when is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein. it is clear that the designations and allegations in the Informations are for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of regulated drugs. Ephedrine has been classified as a regulated drug by the Dangerous Drugs Board in Board.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006

Senate vs. Ermita , GR 169777, April 20, 2006 FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition proffer that the President has abused power by issuing E.O. 464 “Ensuring Observance of the Principles of Separation of Powers, Adherence to the Rule on Executive Privilege and Respect for the Rights of Public Officials Appearing in Legislative Inquiries in Aid of Legislation Under the Constitution, and for Other Purposes”. Petitioners pray for its declaration as null and void for being unconstitutional. In the exercise of its legislative power, the Senate of the Philippines, through its various Senate Committees, conducts inquiries or investigations in aid of legislation which call for, inter alia, the attendance of officials and employees of the executive department, bureaus, and offices including those employed in Government Owned and Controlled Corporations, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Philippine National Police (PNP). The Committee of the Senate issued inv
3 comments
Read more

Pimentel vs. COMELEC GR 161658, Nov. 3, 2003

Facts: Congress passed RA 9165, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and makes it mandatory for candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses, among other personalities, to undergo a drug test. Hence, Senator Pimentel, who is a senatorial candidate for the 2004 synchronized elections, challenged Section 36(g) of the said law. Issue: is the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office an unconstitutional imposition of additional qualification on candidates for Senator? Held: Yes. Section 36 (g) of RA 9165, requiring all candidates for public office whether appointed or elected both in the national or local government undergo a mandatory drug test is UNCONSITUTIONAL. Under Sec.3, Art. VI of the Constitution, an aspiring candidate for Senator needs only to meet 5 qualifications: (1) citizenship, (2) voter registration, (
Post a Comment
Read more

oblicon digests

MAGDALENA ESTATE VS. MYRICK 71 PHIL. 346 FACTS: Magdalena Estate, Inc. sold to Louis Myrick lots No. 28 and 29 of Block 1, Parcel 9 of the San Juan Subdivision, San Juan, Rizal. Their contract of sale provides that the Price of P7,953 shall be payable in 120 equal monthly installments of P96.39 each on the second day of every month beginning the date of execution of the agreement. In pursuance of said agreement, the vendee made several payments amounting to P2,596.08, the last being due and unpaid was that of May 2, 1930. By reason of this, the vendor, through its president, notified the vendee that, in view of his inability to comply with the terms of their contract, said agreement had been cancelled, relieving him of any further obligation thereunder, and that all amounts paid by him had been forfeited in favor of the vendor. To this communication, the vendee did not reply, and it appears likewise that the vendor thereafter did not require him to make any further disbursements on acc
1 comment
Read more