Facts: Around 6:30 am, 2 conctruction workers, Cañete and Ganaganag saw a girl being hugged and pulled by a man towards the ipil trees. Ganaganag proceeded toward the bushes where he saw a young girl lying face down with a man beside her. The man immediately ran away and while Ganagana ran after him, he saw the man’s face and identified him as the appellant Gaballo. He was arrested and he admitted the killing. However he opposed the aggravating circumstance of having committed the crime under the influence of dangerous drugs since he admitted that he sniffed only rugby at the time of the killing.
Issue: Whether or not rugby falls under the definition of dangerous drug.
Held: Considering the highly technical nature of the issue of what constitutes "other drugs and chemical preparations, whether natural or synthetic, with the physiological effects of a narcotic or a hallucinogenic drug" as prohibited drugs, or "any other compound producing similar physiological effects" as regulated drugs, one cannot conclusively consider "rugby" as falling under any of these without any competent expert testimony to establish the same. The life of the convict cannot be taken, on the basis of a mere presumption that "rugby" might fall under any of these definitions of what constitutes dangerous drugs. There has to be sufficient evidence which will constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt that "rugby" is a dangerous drug within the definition of the law. Absent such proof, it cannot be considered that crime of murder to be aggravated by Section 17 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 179.
0 comments:
Post a Comment