PDEA Academy

PDEA Academy

On criminology

R.A.9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 provides that the PDEA Academy shall be established either in Baguio City or in Tagaytay City.

The PDEA Academy shall be responsible for the recruitment and training of future PDEA Agents as well as other personnel.

        Related: Qualifications of a PDEA Agent

Aside from firearms training and self-defense training, PDEA recruits undertake courses such as anti-illegal drug investigation courses and Airport Drug Interdiction courses.

PDEA's core value's are taken from its own name PDEA
      Professional
      Dynamic
      Excellence-Driven
      Accountable

PDEA's screening process for agent applicants is very rigid. They must undergo and pass the following:
1. Neuro-Psychological Examination
2. Medical Examination
3. Physical Examination
4. Agility Test
5. Background Investigation
6. Panel Interview

Those PDEA recruits undertaking training right now consist mostly of Criminology and Nursing graduates. There are few law graduates also.

The PDEA Academy is presently training its 7th batch of recruits. There training started last March and will end 6 months thereafter.

The PDEA Academy is headed by a Superintendent. This position requires the rank of a Director. The PDEA Director-General has the power to make the appointment.

PDEA Academy in its early years is housed in Baguio City. The Training Center and Housing of its recruits are in the same Compound as that of the NBI CAR Regional Office.

PDEA Academy presently is located in Camp General Mariano N. Castañeda in Silang, Cavite. Remember that the law requires that the PDEA Academy must be located in Baguio City or Tagaytay
City or any other suitable place. I do not know if the present location is really suitable. The Baguio City training center before is very ideal considering that the climate is conducive to learning and it is located in the heart of Benguet. Benguet province is one of the major producers of the most popular
prohibited drug in the Philippines which is Marijuana.

PDEA do not recruit at regular interval. It recruits agents and personnel as the need arises. Vacancies are posted on its official website. Just check it out often if interested.

        Links are posted on this article

PDEA agent recruits training usually lasts for 6 months.

The entry-level salary for agents is Salary Grade 11 under the Salary Standardization Law. Salary Grade 11 is more or less P14,000 which is modest if you are a college graduate and Civil Service Professional eligible. (this figure may no longer be accurate)

The Dangerous Drugs Board is the one who has the power to provide for the qualifications and requirements for PDEA recruits.

The PDEA serves as the implementing arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board. It is similar to that of the DOJ with respect to the NBI.

The Dangerous Drugs Board which is under the office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines is responsible for policymaking and strategy formulating for drug prevention and control.

You may want to read:
1. Wilkins Villanueva Appointed new PDEA Head

2. Police Regional Office 1 

Top Agriculture School In The Philippines June 2015

Top Agriculture School In The Philippines June 2015

On PRC

Based On The Result Of The June 2015 Agriculturist Board Examination


Update: November 2019 Top Agricultural School in the Philippines

No.1
UP-Los Banos
Passing Percentage - 98.61%
Number of Examinees - 72
Number of Those Who Passed - 71
Number of Those Who Failed - 1

        Note: PRC published result put one examinees in
        conditional status, not actually failed.


No.2
Mindanao State University - Naawan
Passing Percentage - 75%
Number of Examinees - 16
Number of Those Who Passed - 12
Number of Those Who Failed - 4


No.3
Xavier University
Passing Percentage - 70.91%
Number of Examinees - 55
Number of Those Who Passed - 39
Number of Those Who Failed - 16


No.4
Cavite State University
Passing Percentage - 70.31%
Number of Examinees - 64
Number of Those Who Passed - 45
Number of Those Who Failed - 19

Agriculturist Board Exam Topnotchers

Agriculturist Board Exam Topnotchers

On PRC

Agriculturist Board Exam Top Ten Examinees

Update: November 2019 Agriculturist Board Exam Top 10 Examinees

June 2015 Agriculturist Board Examination

1st Placer  - Julius Caesar Masi Amoyen 87%
                   Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University
                   Bacnotan La Union Campus

2nd Placer  - Rohilyn Bertillo Egle 85.67%
                    UP-Los Banos

3rd Placer  - Bernadith Tartado Borja 85.50%
                    University of Southern Mindanao - Kabacan

4th Placer  - Darwin Magsino Landicho 85.33%
                    UP-Los Banos

5th Placer  - James Lorezo Fajardo 85.17%
                    Central Mindanao University

                    Joe Brugada Poblete 85.17%
                    Cavite State University

                    Izy Santos San Jose 85.17%
                    UP-Los Banos

6th Placer  - Alvin Lising Nava 85%
                    Central Philippine University

                    Royette Cacho Santos 85%
                    Central Luzon State University

7th Placer  - Rodulfo Jr Pasos Castro 84.83%
                    Mindanao State University - Marawi City

                    John Gepitulan Ponteras 84.83%
                    Southern Philippines Agriculture, Business,
                    Marine and Aquatic School of Technology

                    Jay Vencint Bangot Zulita 84.83%
                    Xavier University

8th Placer  - Jordan Gabuya Calura 84.50%
                    Central Luzon State University

9th Placer  - Jimae Faith Bustos Magnaye 84.33%
                    Central Mindanao University

10th Placer - Michelle Ann Magat Calubaquib 84.17%
                    UP-Los Banos

                    Wilfredo Jr Orig De Mesa 84.17%
                    Southern Luzon State University - Lucban

                    Jeisel Obillo Labatete 84.17%
                    Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State University
                    Bacnotan La Union Campus

                    Dominga Paloging Magnanang 84.17%
                    Benguet State University - La Trinidad Benguet

                    Ma Michelle Mula Medura 84.17%
                    Central Mindanao University

                    Ma Christine Gabatino Ortiguero 84.17%
                    UP-Los Banos

                    John Arris Espirito Rayo 84.17%
                    Central Luzon State University

                    Franc Anton Ondesimo Vilgera 84.17%
                    Central Bicol State University of Agriculture - Pili


               

Agriculturist Board Exam Result June 2015

Agriculturist Board Exam Result June 2015

On PRC

The result of the June 2015 Agriculturist Board Exam has been released.

Update: November 2019 Agricultural Board Exam Result

Click here to view the complete names of those who passed.


6,080 examinees took the examination but only 1,888 passed.

UP Los Banos is the No.1 Agriculturist school. Out of its
72 examinees, only one failed.

        Note: PRC published report listed one UP examinees
        under conditional and not under failed. It was listed as
        failed above just to get the passing percentage.


        Related: Top Agriculture School In The Philippines


The Exam's 1st Placer is Julius Caesar Masi Amoyen.
He is a graduate of Don Mariano Marcos Memorial State
University Bacnotan La Union Campus.


        Related: Top Ten Examinees


Jeisel Obillo Labatete, also a graduate of Don Mariano
Marcos Memorial State University Bacnotan La Union Campus
landed on No.10.

223 Agriculture School were represented in the examination.

The Board of Agriculture gave the examination in the ff: Cities:
1. Manila
2. Baguio
3. Cagayan de Oro
4. Cebu
5. Davao
6. Iloilo
7. Legazpi
8. Lucena
9. Tacloban
10.Tuguegarao
11.Zamboanga

The following are the members of the Board of Agriculture:
1. Dr. Fortunato A. Battad, Chairman
2. Dr. Rodolfo M. Ela, Member
3. Dr. Nora B. Inciong, Member
4. Inv. Gonzalo O. Catan, Jr., Member
5. Mr. Vicente L. Domingo, Member

Registration for the issuance of Professional Identification
Card  (ID) and Certificate of Registration will be on June
18 and 19, 2015.

Those who will register are required to bring the following:
1. Duly accomplished Oath Form or Panunumpa ng Propesyonal
2. Current Community Tax Certificate (cedula)
3. 1 piece passport size picture (colored with white background
   and complete name tag)
4. 2 sets of metered documentary stamps
5. 1 short brown envelope with name and profession

Pay the Initial Registration Fee of P600 and Annual Registration
Fee of P450 for 2015-2018.

Successful examinees should personally register and sign in
the Roster of Registered Professionals.

Admission By Privies

Admission By Privies

On Evidence

Privies
Those who have mutual or successive relationship to the same right
of property or subject matter, such as “personal representatives,
heirs, devisees, legatees, assigns, voluntary grantee or judgment
creditors or purchasers from them without notices to the fact.

Privity
Mutual succession of relationship to the same rights of property.

Requisites
1. There must be a relation of privity between the party and the
   declarant
2. The admission was made by the declarant, as predecessor in
   interest, while holding the title to the property.
3. The admission is in relation to said property.

Alpuerto vs. Perez Pastor
Privity in estate may have arisen by succession, acts mortis causa
or acts inter vivos.

Where one derives title to property from another, the
act/declaration/omission of the latter, while holding the title,
in relation to the property, is evidence against the former.

The privity in estate may have arisen by succession by acts
mortis cause or by acts inter vivos.

Basis
It is an established rule in evidence that the declaration of a
person under whom the title is claimed are receivable against the
successor so claiming, on the theory that there is sufficient
identity of interest to render the statements of the former
equally receivable with the admissions of the present
owner, and that the rights of the latter are those of the former.

The principle on which such evidence is received is that the
declarant was so situated that he probably knew the truth, and
his interest were such that he would not have made the admissions
to the prejudice of his title or possession, unless they were true.
The regard which one so situated would have to his interest is
considered sufficient security against falsehood.

In order to render an admission of a former owner of property
competent against his successor in title, it must have been made
at a time when the title was in the declarant.

General Rule
Declarations of the transferor, made subsequent to the transfer,
are inadmissible.

Exceptions
1. Where the declarations are made in the presence of the transferee
   and he acquiesces in the statements or asserts no rights where
   he ought to speak;
2. Where there has been a prima facie case of fraud established as
   where the thing granted has a corpus, and the possession of
   the thing after the sale or transfer, remains with the seller
   or transferor;
3. Where the evidence establishes a continuing conspiracy to
   defraud, which conspiracy exists between the vendor and
   the vendee.

Admission By Conspirator

Admission By Conspirator

On Evidence

Under the Revised Penal Code, a conspiracy exists when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony
and decide to commit it.

How Conspiracies are Proved
Conspiracies are generally proved by a number of indefinite acts,
conditions, and circumstances which vary according to the purposes
to be accomplished. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by
their acts the same object, one performing one part and another
performing part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to
the attainment of the same object, one will be justified in the
conclusion that they were engaged in the conspiracy to effect that
object.

NOTE: This rule applies only to extra-judicial acts or statements
and not to testimony given on the witness stand at the trial where
the party adversely affected thereby has the opportunity to
cross-examine the declarant. Hence, the requirement that the
conspiracy must preliminary be proved by evidence other than the
conspirator’s admission applies only to extra-judicial, but not to
judicial, admissions.

Requisites:
1. Such conspiracy is shown by evidence aliunde – conspiracy must
   be established by prima facie proof in the judgment of the court.
2. The admission was made during the existence of the conspiracy –
   after, the termination of a conspiracy, the statements of one
   conspirator may not be accepted as evidence against any of the
   other conspirators.
3. The admission related to the conspiracy itself - should relate
   to the common object.

Rule on admission by conspirator:
1. The act or declaration of a conspirator
2. Relating to the conspiracy and during its existence,
3. May be given in evidence against the co-conspirator
4. After the conspiracy
   a. is shown by evidence
   b. other than such act or declaration.

Requisites for application of the admission by conspirator:
1. The conspiracy must be established by independent evidence.
2. The statement refers to the purpose or object of the conspiracy.
3. The statement must be made during the existence of the conspiracy.
   (People vs. Dagundong, L-10398, June 30, 1960)

   This refers to extra-judicial acts and declarations of a
   conspirator and not to his testimony as a witness in the trial.
   (People vs. Atencio, L-222518, Jan. 17, 1968)

These are not required in admissions during the trial as the
co-accused can cross-examine the declarant and besides these are
admissions after the conspiracy has ended.

Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy.

The conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused or from
the confessions of the accused or by prima facie proof thereof.

The concurrence of minds essential to conspiracy may be inferred
where the parties are apparently pursuing the same object whether
acting separately or together by common or different means leading
to the same lawful result, and a common purpose is inferable from
concerted action converging to a definite objective and whether or
not the parties meet, or confer and formulate their plans.

Conspiracy must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as
the commission of the offense itself.

A person charged with conspiracy is presumed to be innocent, and
the burden is on the prosecution to establish his guilt.

The rule of evidence with regard to conspiracy is founded on the
principle which apply to agencies and partnerships, the association
should be bound by the acts of one of its members in carrying out
the design.

Where there is no independent evidence of the alleged conspiracy,
the extra-judicial confession of an accused cannot be used against
his co-accused as the res inter alios rule applies to both
extra-judicial confessions and admissions.

General Rule:
Extra judicial admissions made by a conspirator after the conspiracy
has terminated and even before trial are also not admissible against
the co-conspirator.

Exceptions:
1. Made in the presence of the latter who expressly or impliedly
   agreed therein, as there would be a tacit admission under
   Section 32.
2. Where the facts stated in said admission are confirmed in the
   individual extra-judicial confessions made by the co-conspirators
   after their apprehension (interlocking confessions)
3. As a circumstance to determine the credibility of a witness.
4. As circumstantial evidence to show the probability of the latter’s
   participation in the offense.

If made after the act designed is fully accomplished and after the
object of the conspiracy has been either attained of finally defeated,
the declaration will be admissible only against the person who made it.

In order that the extra-judicial statements of a co-accused may be
taken into consideration in judging the testimony of a witness, it
is necessary that the statements are made by several accused, the
same are in all material respects identical, and there could have been
no collusion among said co-accused in making such statements.

If this testimony is introduced to prove the truth of B’s statement,
it will be hearsay, but it will fall within the co-conspirator
exception to hearsay rule. This is because the statement was:
1. Made by a co-conspirator
2. Made during the course of the conspiracy
3. Made in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy

Admission By Co-Partner Or Agent

Admission By Co-Partner Or Agent

On Evidence

Rule on admission by co-partner or agent:
1. The act or declaration of a partner or
2. Agent within the scope of his authority and during the existence
   of the partnership or agency,
3. May be given in evidence against such party
4. After the partnership or agency
   a. Is shown by evidence
   b. Other than such act or declaration.
5. The same rule applies to the act or declaration of a joint owner,
   joint debtor, or other person jointly interested with the party.

The admission of one partner is received against another on the
ground that they are identified in interest , and that each is agent
for the other and that the acts or declarations of one during the
existence of the partnership, while transacting its business and
within the scope of the business, are evidence against the others.

Requisites:
1. That the partnership, agency, or joint interest is established
   by evidence other than the act or declaration – partnership
   relation must be shown
2. The act or declaration is within the scope of the partnership,
   agency or joint interest – the fact that each has individually
   made a substantially similar admission does not render the
   aggregate admission competent against the firm, this is with
   regard to a non- partnership affair.
3. Such act or declaration must have been made during the existence
   of the partnership, agency or joint interest.

The declaration of one partner, not made in the presence of his
co-partner, are not competent to prove the existence of a
partnership between them as against such other partner. The
existence of a partnership is cannot be established by general
reputation, humor or hearsay.

Even where one partner is shown to be hostile to another, the
admissions of such first partner may be received, although, of
course, such hostility may affect the question of weight of the
evidence. The declarations of a deceased partner, relating to the
partnership business, are admissible against his survivors.

Declarations or admissions made by a partner after the dissolution
of the partnership are not competent against the other partners in
the absence of prior authority or subsequent ratification, even
though such declarations relate to matters pending at the time of
dissolution.

With respect to the relevant substantive provisions on these matters,
refer to the Civil Code provisions on partners, agents, co-owners
and solidary debtors.

NOTE: As a rule, statements made after a partnership has been
dissolved do not fall within this exception, but where the admissions
are made in connection with the winding up of the partnership
affairs, said admissions are still admissible as the partner is
acting as an agent of his co-partners in said winding up.

What is done by an agent is done by the principal through him, as
through a mere instrument.

The admission or declaration of an agent subsequent to a transaction
in controversy, or after this agency has terminated are not binding
upon, or evidence against his principal. But when the admission or
declaration is made at the time of the transaction, or during his
employment, when it pertains to the matter in hand, as agent, which
is within the cope of his employment, his admissions and declarations
are competent, though not conclusive against his principal.

When a party to any proceeding expressly refers to any other person
for an answer on a particular subject in dispute, such answer, if
restricted to the subject matter in relation to which the reference
is made, is in general, evidence against said party, for the reason
that he makes such third person his accredited agent for the purpose
of giving such answer.

The admissions of a third person are receivable in evidence against
the party who has expressly referred another to him for information
in regard to an uncertain or disputed matter.

But such a reference does not make the person referred to an agent
for the purpose of making general admissions, the declarations are
not evidence unless strictly within the subject matter in
relation to which reference is made.

When the reference was not made to any particular person but in
general, the rule above-stated is not applicable.

Admissions by counsel are admissible against the client as the
former acts in representation and as an agent of the client, subject
to the limitation that the same should not amount to a compromise or
confession of judgment.

The phrase “joint debtor” does not refer to mere community of
interest but should be understood according to its meaning in the
common law system from which the provision was taken, that is, in
solidum, and not mancomunada.

The quantum of interest of the declarant does not affect the
application of the rule. It is the fact of joint interest, not
the size of the fractional part, which governs. If he is liable to
the plaintiff in the same manner that his co-defendants are liable,
the extent to which they are bound by his admission cannot be
measured or graduated by the quantity of his interest in the
contract.