Date Case Violation Doctrine

DATE
June 20, 2012
CASE
People vs.
Maraorao, G.R. No.
174369 ACQUITTED
VIOLATION
violation of Section 16,
Article III of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 6425, The
Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972
DOCTRINE
In order to convict appellant for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, or the shabu in this
case, the prosecution evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements:
(1) the appellant was in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or
dangerous drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the appellant freely
and consciously possessed the drug. (People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560
SCRA 430, 451.)
In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements
of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused.[People v. Limpangog,
444 Phil. 691, 693 (2003).] While a lone witness testimony is sufficient to convict an accused
in certain instances, the testimony must be clear, consistent, and crediblequalities we cannot
ascribe to this case. Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it
must both come from a credible witness and be credible in itself tested by human
experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through
the years.[People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 761, 769.]
Clearly from the foregoing, the prosecution failed to establish by proof beyond reasonable
doubt that appellant was indeed in possession of shabu, and that he freely and consciously
possessed the same.
The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional
principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of
proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Corollary thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecutions evidence and not
on the weakness of the defense.[People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010, 619
SCRA 389, 399.] In this case, the prosecutions evidence failed to overcome the presumption
of innocence, and thus, appellant is entitled to an acquittal.
Indeed, suspicion no matter how strong must never sway judgment. Where there is reasonable
doubt, the accused must be acquitted even though their innocence may not have been
established. The Constitution presumes a person innocent until proven guilty by proof beyond
reasonable doubt. When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, it has been our policy of
long standing that the presumption of innocence must be favored, and exoneration granted as a
matter of right.[Fernandez v. People, G.R. No. 138503, September 28, 2000, 341 SCRA 277,
299.]
June 13, 2012
People vs. Climaco,
violation of Sections 5 and
Constitutional Presumption of Innocence; Weight of Evidence
G.R. No. 199403 ACQUITTED
11 of Republic Act No.

9165, for illegal possession
and illegal sale of
methamphetamine
hydrochloride
The Constitution guarantees the accuseds presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Section 14(2) of the Bill of Rights (Article III) provides that, in all criminal prosecutions, the
accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.
Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court likewise states that, in a criminal case, the accused
is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, which
produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainly is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
The prosecution did not explain why the markings of the plastic sachets containing the alleged
drugs, which were submitted to be TR-B and TR-R, became GSC-1 and GSC-2 in the
Chemistry Report, Index of Exhibits and Minutes of the Hearing. In their decisions, the RTC
and CA were silent on the change of the markings. In fact, since the markings are different,
the presumption is that the substance in the plastic sachets marked as TR-B and TR-R is
different from the substance in the plastic sachets marked as GSC-1 and GSC-2. There is
no moral certainty that the substance taken from appellant is the same dangerous drug
submitted to the laboratory and the trial court.
June 13, 2012
People vs. Ancheta,

G.R. No. 197371,
ACQUITTED
violation of Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165
(R.A. 9165)
As held in Malillin v. People, to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in
cases involving dangerous drugs, it is important that the substance illegally possessed in the
first place be the same substance offered in court as exhibit. This chain of custody
requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts are removed concerning the identity of the
evidence. When the identity of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not the
same dangerous drug presented to the forensic chemist for review and examination, nor the
same dangerous drug presented to the court, the identity of the dangerous drug is not
preserved due to the broken chain of custody. With this, an element in the criminal cases for
illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti, is not proven, and
the accused must then be acquitted based on reasonable doubt. For this reason, Climaco must
be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt due to the broken chain of custody over the
dangerous drug allegedly recovered from him.
In the very recent case People v. Umipang,[G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012.] we explained
that the nature of a buy-bust operation necessitates a stringent application of the procedural
safeguards specifically crafted by Congress in R.A. 9165 to counter potential police abuses.
Indeed, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items that is
of utmost importance in determining the admissibility of the evidence presented in court,

especially in cases of buy-bust operations. That is why Congress saw fit to fashion a detailed
procedure in order to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items
would not be compromised. The marking of the seized items was only a piece in a detailed set
of procedural safeguards embodied in R.A. 9165. If the arresting officers were unable to
comply with the other requirements, they were under obligation to explain why the procedure
was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the
requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be
disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience.
April 25,
2012
People vs.
Umipang, GR No.
190321, ACQUITTED
Violation of Sections 5 and

11, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165
We reiterate that R.A. 9165 has a strict mandate for the arresting officers to comply with the
afore-quoted procedural safeguards. We further note that, before the saving clause provided
under it can be invoked, Section 21(a) of the IRR requires the prosecution to prove the twin
conditions of (a) existence of justifiable grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case, the arresting officers neither presented nor
explained justifiable grounds for their failure to (1) make a physical inventory of the seized
items; (2) take photographs of the items; and (3) establish that a representative each from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official had been
contacted and were present during the marking of the items. These errors were exacerbated by
the fact that the officers had ample time to comply with these legal requirements, as they had
already monitored and put accused-appellants on their watch list. The totality of these
circumstances has led us to conclude that the apprehending officers deliberately disregarded
the legal procedure under R.A. 9165. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on
the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frameup.[People v. Umipang] Accused-appellants would thereby be discharged from the crimes of
which they were convicted.
Substantive law requires strict observance of the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A.
9165 Although we have ruled in the past that mere procedural lapses in the conduct of a buybust operation are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecutions cause, so long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, [Imson v. People, G.R. 193003,
13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 826] courts must still thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those
errors that constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross,
systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards drawn by the law. Consequently,
Section 21(a) of the IRR provides for a saving clause in the procedures outlined under Section
21(1) of R.A. 9165, which serves as a guide in ascertaining those procedural aspects that may
be relaxed under justifiable grounds.
this saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and
thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds after which, the prosecution must show
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved. [People
v. Garcia] To repeat, noncompliance with the required procedure will not necessarily result in
the acquittal of the accused if: (1) the noncompliance is on justifiable grounds; and (2) the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team. [People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, 29 October 2008, 570 SCRA
273]
despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of law enforcers,
[Imson v. People,] we stress that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a
matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural
technicality. The provisions were crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address
potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life
imprisonment. In People v. Coreche, [G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 350, fn.
16 at 358-359.] we explained thus: The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity
for tampering with evidence found legislative expression in Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 on
the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered
requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the
apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs the duty to immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. (Emphasis supplied.)
Material irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operations In the recent case of People
v. Relato, we reiterated the following:
In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited
under Republic Act No. 9165, the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the
elements of the offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing
in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the
prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the
chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of
the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. Any gap renders the case for
the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Thus, Relato deserves exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense
of frame-up became plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecutions evidence of
guilt. [G.R. No. 173794, 18 January 2012.]
Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an
accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted.[People v. Ulama, G.R. No.
186530, 14 December 2011] This is especially true when the lapses in procedure were
recognized and explained in terms of [] justifiable grounds.[People v. Martin] There must
also be a showing that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were
thwarted by some justifiable consideration/reason.[People v. Martin] However, when there is
gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. 9165),
serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution
presented in evidence.[People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, 25 February 2009, 580 SCRA 259,
266-267] This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard
of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official
duties.[Id] As a result, the prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements
of the crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.[Id]
April 18,
2012
Reyes vs.
Honorable Court of
Appeals, G. R. No.
180177 ACQUITTED
violations of Section 5 and

Section 11, Article II of
For the arresting officers failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from
the totality of the procedural lapses committed in this case that the arresting officers
deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165. These lapses effectively
produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the
face of allegations of frame-up. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in
favor of accused-appellant, as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, 29
October 2008, 570 SCRA 273]
The buy-bust operation mounted against petitioner resulted from the tip of an unnamed lady
confidential informant. Such an operation, according to People v. Garcia,[G.R. No. 173480,
February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259.] was susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of
which is its use as a tool for extortion, and the possibility of that abuse was great.[Id., at p.
267, citing People v. Tan, G.R. No. 133001, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 116.] The
susceptibility to abuse of the operation led to the institution of several procedural safeguards
by R.A. No. 9165, mainly to guide the law enforcers. Thus, the State must show a faithful
compliance with such safeguards during the prosecution of every drug-related offense.[Id., at
p. 267, citing People v. Tan, G.R. No. 133001, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 116.]
The procedural safeguards start with the requirements prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 relating to the custody and disposition of the confiscated, seized, and surrendered
dangerous drugs, plant sources of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments and paraphernalia, and laboratory equipment.
This duty of seeing to the integrity of the dangerous drugs and substances is discharged only
when the arresting law enforcer ensures that the chain of custody is unbroken. This has been
the reason for defining chain of custody under Section 1(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, viz:
(b) Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer or custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as
evidence, and the final disposition; (Emphasis supplied)
We clarified in People v. Sanchez[G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.] that in
compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, supra, the physical inventory and
photographing of the seized articles should be conducted, if practicable, at the place of seizure
or confiscation in cases of warrantless seizure. But that was true only if there were indications
that petitioner tried to escape or resisted arrest, which might provide the reason why the
arresting team was not able to do the inventory or photographing at petitioners house;
otherwise, the physical inventory and photographing must always be immediately executed at
the place of seizure or confiscation.
In People v. Pringas,[G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828.] the noncompliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21, supra, was held not to be fatal for as long
as there was justifiable ground for it, and for as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the confiscated or seized articles were properly preserved by the apprehending officer or
team. The Court further pronounced therein that such non-compliance would not render an
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible, for what was
of utmost importance was the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized or confiscated articles, considering that they were to be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused.
However, the omissions noted herein indicated that the State did not establish the identity of
the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from petitioner with the same exacting certitude required
for a finding of guilt.
April 11, 2012
People vs.
ABEDIN, G.R. No.
179936 CONVICTED
violating Sections 5 and

11, Article II of the
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002
Conviction must stand on the strength of the Prosecutions evidence, not on the weakness of
the defense the accused put up.[People v. Obeso, G.R. No. 152285, October 24, 2003, 414
SCRA 447, 460; People v. Decillo, G.R. No. 121408, October 2, 2000, 341 SCRA 591, 598599.] Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If
the evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be
deprived of his liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter of course.
In cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to
prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their
duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[People v. Navarro, G.R.
No. 173790, October 11, 2007, 535 SCRA 644, 649, citing People v. Saludes, G.R. No.
144157, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 590, 595.] In this case, no such evidence was adduced
showing any irregularity in any material aspect of the conduct of the buy-bust operation.
Noncompliance with Section 21 will not render the arrest of an accused illegal or the items
seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.[People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28,
2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448; People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA
627, 636, citing People v. Pringas, supra note 27 at 842-843.] What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[People v.
Naquita, id.]
While it is true that Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of
Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain close coordination with the PDEA
on all drug-related matters, the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEAs participation
a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of
an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court which police
authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of R.A. No. 9165 in support of
the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.
[People v. Roa, G.R. No. 186134, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 359, 368-370.]
Neither is the lack of prior surveillance fatal. It must be stressed that prior surveillance is not
a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation. This issue in the prosecution of
illegal drugs cases, again, has long been settled by this Court. We have been consistent in our
ruling that prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, especially if the
buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by their informant.[People v. Lacbanes, 336
Phil. 933, 941 (1997).]
April 11, 2012
People vs. Biyala,

G.R. No. 177224 Convicted
violations of Section 8,
Article II and Section 16,
No. 6425
In People v. Eugenio,[443 Phil. 411, 422-423 (2003).] the Court held that there is no
requirement that prior surveillance should be conducted before a buy-bust operation can be
undertaken especially when the policemen are accompanied to the scene by their civilian
informant. Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or a buybust operation, there being no fixed or textbook method for conducting one. When time is of
essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance. It is therefore clear that
the buy-bust operation, albeit made without the participation of PDEA and conducted without
prior surveillance, did not violate Abedins constitutional right to be protected from illegal
arrest.
Illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is committed when the following elements
concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug.[People v. Lagata, 452 Phil. 846, 853 (2003).]
All these elements were established beyond reasonable doubt in the cases against accusedappellant. The prosecution witnesses consistently and categorically testified that pursuant to a
search warrant duly issued by a judge, they found and seized from accused-appellants house
and actual possession a brick of marijuana leaves and heat-sealed sachets of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
In contrast, accused-appellant only proffered the defenses of denial and frame-up, that the
dangerous drugs and paraphernalia were planted by the police officers.
Moreover, in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to
prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their
duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[ People v. Bongalon, 425
Phil. 96, 114 (2002).] In the absence of proof of any odious intent to falsely impute a serious
crime, the self-serving defenses of denial and unsubstantiated claim of frame-up of an accused
can never prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.[People v.
Ambrosio, 471 Phil. 241, 267 (2004).]
In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes a contest of the
April 11, 2012
People vs. Figueroa,

G.R. No. 186141

Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165
March 21,
2012
People vs.
Cardenas, G. R.
No. 190342 CONVICTED
selling the prohibited drug

methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.
Chain of custody
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's
assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with
arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. The reason is
obvious. Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and
manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate
testimonial evidence properly. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the
said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.[People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511,
July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 444.]
Lack of Prior Coordination with the PDEA - It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No.
9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the the law enforcers failure to maintain
close coordination with the PDEA. Thus, in People v. Berdadero,[G.R. No. 179710, June 29,
2010, 622 SCRA 196.] the Court noted that Section 86, as well as the Internal Rules and
Regulations implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part
of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust
operation. This Court consequently held that this silence [cannot] be interpreted as a
legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence
obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.[People v. Berdadero] The same conclusion
was reached by this Court in People v. Roa,[G.R. No. 186134, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 359.]
People v. Mantalaba[G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011.] and People v. Sabadlab.[G.R. No.
186392, January 18, 2012.]
In People v. Salonga,[G.R. No. 186390, 02 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783.] we held that it is
essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from
the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be
established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. Thus, drug
enforcement agents and police officers involved in a buy-bust operation are required by R.A.
9165 and its implementing rules to mark all seized evidence at the buy-bust scene.
The chain of custody is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1,
Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165.
To protect the civil liberties of the innocent, the rule ensures that the prosecutions evidence
meets the stringent standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. We have held, however that
substantial compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not
necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible. In People v. Ara,[People v. Ara, G.R.
No. 185011, 23 December 2009, 609 SCRA 304] we ruled that R.A. 9165 and its IRR do not
require strict compliance with the chain of custody rule.
Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR
relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a
serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Although we find that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of
Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. 9165, the noncompliance did not affect
the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused, because the chain of custody of
the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case.
March 7,
2012
February 15,
2012
People vs. Paler,

People vs. Clarite,

No. 9165
No. 9165
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about
the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with
said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight evidentiary merit or probative value
to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends
on the circumstances obtaining in each case. (Emphasis supplied.)
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the
buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is
the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of evidence of corpus delicti.[People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA
430, 449.] The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of
the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. The testimonial and the
documentary pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against the
appellant establish the presence of these elements.
Plainly, the prosecution established the crucial links in the chain of custody of the sold and
seized sachet of shabu, from the time it was first seized from the appellant, until it was
brought for examination and presented in court. The identity, quantity and quality of the
illegal drugs remained untarnished and preserved; hence, the integrity of the drugs seized
remained intact.
In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers on the ground that they are presumed to have performed
their duties in a regular manner. The exception is when there is evidence to the contrary
suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular
performance of their duties.[People v. Tion, G.R. No. 172092, December 16, 2009, 608 SCRA
299, 316-317.] In the case at bar, accused-appellants only evidence of ill motive on the part
10
of the NBI operatives is his own testimony of frame-up and extortion, a very common defense
in dangerous drugs cases. We have held that such defense is viewed with disfavor, for it can
be easily concocted. To substantiate such a defense, therefore, the evidence must be clear and
convincing.[Zalameda v. People, G.R. No. 183656, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 537, 556.]
As for accused-appellants argument that he would not have sold shabu in a
crowded place, we find the same unconvincing. We have already held in Ching v.
People[G.R. No. 177237, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 711.] that:
This Court observed in many cases that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any
prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the
daytime. Indeed, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse,
openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the time and venue of the sale, but the
fact of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.[ Ching v.
People, at 734]
February 8,
2012
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs.
FLORDELIZA
ARRIOLA
y DE LARA, G.R.
Violation of Section 5,
Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9165
This Court has already held that the silence of the foregoing provision as to the consequences
of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the prior authority of the PDEA cannot
be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without such PDEA participation illegal
or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.[People v. Berdadero, G.R. No.
179710, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 196, 207.]
On this point, it is good to note the case of People v. Dela Rosa, where this Court held that in
cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution
witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the
police officers.[G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 635, 657.]
Arriola is of the position that there was no proof that the alleged confiscated shabu was taken
from her. She adds that there was violation of the chain of custody on the part of the buy-bust
team. Specifically, she claims that SPO4 Taruc did not explain how the corpus delicti
transferred hands from the time it was supposedly confiscated from her to the time it was
presented in court as evidence.[16]
In the prosecution of drug related cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the
drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt. Its existence is a condition
sine qua non. It is precisely in this regard that central to this requirement is the question of
whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually the
11
one that was seized from or sold by Arriola.[People v. Kimura, 471 Phil. 895, 909 (2004).] As
such, the chain of custody rule has been adopted in order to address this core issue.
People v. Kamad,[G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.] the Court
enumerated therein the different links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with
respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely: first, the seizure and marking,
if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
The position of Arriola that the prosecution failed to discuss in detail the different links in the
chain as to the transfer of hands of the evidence will not necessarily render said evidence to be
incompetent to convict Arriola for the crime of sale of illegal drugs. It must be remembered
that testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26,
2011, 640 SCRA 697, 718.] As such, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No.
191198, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 718.] The integrity of the evidence is presumed to
be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has
been tampered. Besides, all that Arriola did in her supplemental brief was make a general
allegation that prosecution failed to observe the chain of custody rule without pinpointing the
exact link or links that may have been compromised to bring doubt to the integrity of the
evidence.
January 18,
2012
PEOPLE vs.
MARCOS
Sections 5 and 11 of
Republic Act No.
So, in this case, Arriola has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled
with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, as
well as a presumption that said public officers properly discharged their duties.[People v.
Castro, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011, citing People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October
27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562.] Resultantly, since she failed to discharge such burden, it
cannot be disputed that the drugs seized from her were the same ones examined in the crime
laboratory. The prosecution, therefore, established the crucial link in the chain of custody of
the seized drugs.[People v. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011, citing People v. Ventura,
G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562.]
In the recent case of People v. Tion, [People v. Tion, G.R. No. 172092, December 16, 2009,
608 SCRA 299.] this Court had the opportunity to discuss the weight given to testimonies of
12
SABADLAB y
NARCISO @
Bong Pango,
G.R. No. 186392 CONVICTED
9165
members of buy-bust teams in drug-related cases:

Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the
buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not
properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust
operation deserve full faith and credit. Settled is the rule that in cases
involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to
prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is
evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police
officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. x x
x.[Id. at 316-317.]
Similarly, in another case, [w]e have invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial
and frame-up for such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions
for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. In order to prosper, such defenses must
be proved with strong and convincing evidence.[People v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952,
October 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 551, 569.]
As this Court held in People v. Berdadero,[G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 196.]
the foregoing provision, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same,
is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the
authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation x x x. [T]his silence cannot
be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA
illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.[Id. at 207.] In the case
at bar, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Narciso Sabadlab and accusedappellant Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso alias Bong Pango could have been different persons, the
established fact remains that it was accused-appellant who was caught in flagrante delicto by
the buy-bust team. Following the aforementioned jurisprudence, even the lack of participation
of PDEA would not make accused-appellants arrest illegal or the evidence obtained pursuant
thereto inadmissible.
Neither is prior surveillance a necessity for the validity of the buy-bust operation. People v.
Padua,[G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220.]
In People v. Doria,[G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668.] this Court laid down
13
the objective test in evaluating buy-bust operations:
January 18,
2012
People vs.
DARWIN
RELATO y
AJERO, G.R. No.
173794,
ACQUITTED
We therefore stress that the objective test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of
the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the
initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal
drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not
through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money,
and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must
be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully
induced to commit an offense. Criminals must be caught but not at all cost. At the same time,
however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the
accused's predisposition to commit the crime. If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual
delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered. Courts
should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense
in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.[Id. at 698699.]
Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related
items are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented
against the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal
possession or illegal sale of prohibited drugs.
A review of the records establishes that the aforestated procedure laid down by Republic Act
No. 9165 and its IRR was not followed. Several lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are
readily apparent. To start with, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the
buy-bust team did not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime and in the
presence of Relato and witnesses. Thirdly, although there was testimony about the marking of
the seized items being made at the police station, the records do not show that the marking
was done in the presence of Relato or his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no
representative of the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official attended the
taking of the physical inventory and to sign the inventory.
Under the foregoing rules, the marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link, because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items will use
the markings as reference. It further serves to segregate the marked evidence from the corpus
of all other similar and related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until
they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or
14
contamination of evidence.11 It is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody.

While the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving mechanism to ensure
that not every case of non-compliance irreversibly prejudices the States evidence, it is
significant to note that the application of the saving mechanism to a situation is expressly
conditioned upon the State rendering an explanation of the lapse or lapses in the compliance
with the procedures.13 Here, however, the Prosecution tendered no explanation why the buybust team had failed to mark the seized shabu immediately after the arrest. Nevertheless, even
assuming that marking the shabu at the scene of the crime by the buy-bust team had not been
practical or possible for the buy-bust team to do, the saving mechanism would still not be
applicable due to the lack of a credible showing of any effort undertaken by the buy-bust team
to keep the shabu intact while in transit to the police station.
January 18,
2012
PEOPLE vs.
GERON DE LOS
SANTOS, G.R.
No. 170839,
Convicted
In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited

under Republic Act No. 9165,15 the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the
elements of the offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in
which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the
prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the
chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the
prohibited substance presented as evidence in court.16 Any gap renders the case for the State
less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 17
Thus, Relato deserves exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense of frame-up
became plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecutions evidence of guilt.
In a prosecution for possession of illegal substances, proof of animus possidendi on the part of
the accused is indispensable. But animus possidendi is a state of mind, and is thus to be
determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior and contemporaneous
acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. It may and must be inferred
usually from the attendant events in each particular case. 23 Upon the States presenting to the
trial court of the facts and circumstances from which to infer the existence of animus
possidendi, it becomes incumbent upon the Defense to rebut the inference with evidence that
the accused did not exercise power and control of the illicit thing in question, and did not
intend to do so. For that purpose, a mere unfounded assertion of the accused that he did not
know that he had possession of the illegal drug is insufficient, 24 and animus possidendi is then
presumed to exist on his part because he was thereby shown to have performed an act that the
law prohibited and punished.25
15
December 14,
2011
People vs NELLY
ULAMA, G.R. No.
186530
Article II of
Republic Act No.
9165
It cannot be disputed that Delos Santos had animus possidendi. His conduct prior to and
following his apprehension evinced his guilty knowledge of the contents of the gift-wrapped
box as shabu. His uncorroborated story of having been summoned to help in the cleaning of
Unit 706 was a sham excuse that he peddled to explain his presence in the Somerset
Condominium. His explanation was useless, however, because he was no longer employed as
a janitor of the Somerset Condominium at the time of his arrest after being already terminated
from employment.26 Correlatively, his willingness to run for Wilson the errand of delivering
the gift-wrapped box to the unnamed person near the Jollibee Vito Cruz extension branch
proved that he was serving as a courier of shabu. Besides, his guilty knowledge was
confirmed by his unreasonable refusal to exit from Unit 706 despite the demand of the NBI
agents to do so, and by his stealthy transfer to the adjoining Unit 705. Had he been truly
innocent, he would have voluntarily cooperated with the NBI agents instead of attempting to
escape from them.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the
buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is
the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of evidence of corpus delicti.[People v. Morales, G.R. No. 188608, February 9, 2011, 642
SCRA 612, 619.]
The Court is aware of the stringent requirements laid down in Section 21,
paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165 which states that:
1)
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the

drugs shall, immediately, after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
However, minor deviations from the foregoing procedure would not necessarily result in an
acquittal. In the past, we have also declared that the failure to conduct an inventory and to
photograph the confiscated items in the manner prescribed under the said provision of law x x
x cannot be used as a ground for appellants exoneration from the charge against
him/her.[People v. Gratil, G.R. No. 182236, June 22, 2011.]
16
November 14,
2011
People vs. Bara,

illegal sale of shabu under

Section 5, Article II
of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165 (the
Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002).
Likewise, we have also ruled that [t]he prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its
case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.[People v. Zeng
Hua Dian, G.R. No. 145348, June 14, 2004, 432 SCRA 25, 32.] Thus, appellants argument
that the prosecutions failure to present the chief investigator in court is fatal to its case cannot
prosper.
The witness for the prosecution successfully proved that a buy-bust operation indeed took
place, and the shabu subject of the sale was brought to, and duly identified in, court.
We also find that the totality of the presented evidence leads to an unbroken chain of custody
of the confiscated item from the appellant.
Plainly, the prosecution established the crucial links in the chain of custody of the sold and
seized sachet of shabu, from the time it was first seized from the appellant, until it was
brought for examination and presented in court.
If a flaw exists at all in the prosecutions case, such flaw is in the failure of the apprehending
team to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. We
note, however, that at no time during trial and even on appeal did the defense question the
entrapment teams alleged non-compliance with Section 21.
At any rate, non-compliance by the police with the directive of Section 21, Article 11 of R.A.
No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to a prosecutions case, in light of the last sentence of its
implementing rules expressly stating that non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items[.]
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply with Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items
seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. To reiterate, what assumes utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these are the
critical pieces of evidence in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[See
People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 494, 507, citing People v.
Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 445-446, People v. Del Monte, G.R.
No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA, 627, 636, and People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928,
August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843.]
17
October 19,
2011
HO WAI PANG vs.

People, G.R. No.
176229, Convicted
Section 15, Article III,

Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 6425
It must be stressed that said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the
apparent failure of the accused-appellant to challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue
of disposition and preservation of the subject drugs and drug paraphernalia before the RTC.
Jurisprudence teaches that in assessing the credibility of a witness, his testimony must be considered in its
entirety instead of in truncated parts. The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its
isolated parts and anchor a conclusion on the basis of said parts. In ascertaining the facts established by a
witness, everything stated by him on direct, cross and redirect examinations must be calibrated and
considered.[46] Also, where there is nothing in the records which would show a motive or reason on the
part of the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused, identification should be given full weight. Here,
petitioner presented no evidence or anything to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution, Cinco,
was moved by any improper motive, hence her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit.
Verily, the evidence adduced against petitioner is so overwhelming that this Court is convinced that his guilt
has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing else can speak so eloquently of his culpability than
the unassailable fact that he was caught red-handed in the very act of transporting, along with his co-accused,
shabu into the country. In stark contrast, the evidence for the defense consists mainly of denials.
October 5,
2011
People vs. Ulat,

G.R. No. 180504,
Acquitted
Republic Act No.
9165
Petitioner tried to show that he was not aware of the shabu inside his luggage considering that his bag was
provided by the travel agency. However, it bears stressing that the act of transporting a prohibited drug is a
malum prohibitum because it is punished as an offense under a special law. As such, the mere commission
of the act is what constitutes the offense punished and same suffices to validly charge and convict an
individual caught committing the act so punished regardless of criminal intent. Moreover, beyond his bare
denials, petitioner has not presented any plausible proof to successfully rebut the evidence for the
prosecution. It is basic that affirmative testimony of persons who are eyewitnesses of the events or facts
asserted easily overrides negative testimony.[People v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 129486, July 4, 2008,
557 SCRA 20, 30.]
Moreover, owing to the built-in dangers of abuse that a buy-bust operation entails, the law
prescribes specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, independently of the
general procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation and
of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.[People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832,
October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 208.]
A meticulous review of the records of this case has led us to the conclusion that the
prosecution failed to demonstrate with moral certainty that the identity and integrity of the
prohibited drug, which constitutes the corpus delicti, had been duly preserved.
18
First, the records reveal that the prosecution did not establish the exact location where the
confiscated illegal drug was marked and the identity of the person who marked it because of
contradicting testimonies from the prosecutions witnesses.
Taking into consideration all the conflicting accounts of Pol-ot and PO1 Santos, the Court
believes that any reasonable mind would entertain grave reservations as to the identity and
integrity of the confiscated sachet of shabu submitted for laboratory examination. As likewise
correctly raised by appellant, apart from the testimony that PO1 Santos turned over the
accused to an unnamed duty inspector,[23] the prosecution evidence does not disclose with
clarity how the confiscated sachet passed hands until it was received by the chemical analyst
at the Philippine National Police (PNP) crime laboratory. In other words, the prosecution
could not present an unbroken chain of custody for the seized illegal drug.
In Zaragga v. People,[24] we held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and
where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs
created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. Thus, the accused were
acquitted due to the prosecutions failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu. In
People v. Sitco,[G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010, 620 SCRA 561.] we enumerated other
occasions wherein acquittal was proper for failure of the prosecution to establish a complete
chain of custody, such as:
In a string of cases, we declared that the failure of the
prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a
sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu, and
the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence
before it was finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with every
proposition relative to the culpability of the accused.
September 28,
People vs. Unisa,
Sections 5 and 11, Article
As in People v. Partoza, this case suffers from the failure

of the prosecution witness to provide the details establishing an
unbroken chain of custody. In Partoza, the police officer testifying
did not relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over.
The evidence of the prosecution likewise did not disclose the identity
of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs
after its examination and pending presentation in court.[26]
(Emphases supplied; citations omitted.)
What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
19
2011
GR No. 18572, CONVICTED
II of Republic Act
No. 9165 for
1. selling, delivering
and giving away
to another
Methylamphetami
ne Hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug
weighing 0.02
gram
2. possession,
custody and
control
Methylamphetami
ne Hydrochloride
weighing 0.43
gram
the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. [People v. Gaspar, G.R. No. 192816,
6 July 2011] Clearly, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like
shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the
moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went
through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by appellant, followed by the
delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated. [People v.
Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, 26 January 2011]
Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi, which is sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory
explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence is, thus, shifted to the accused to
explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. [People v. Pendatun, 478 Phil. 201,
212 (2004)]
Jurisprudence is clear that failure to mark the boodle money is not fatal to the cause of the
prosecution. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used
in a buy-bust operation much less is it required that the boodle money be marked. [People
v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504, 515 (2002)] Similarly, the absence of marked money does not
create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution provided that the prosecution has
adequately proved the sale. [People v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 117 (2002)] Hence, the only
elements necessary to consummate the crime of illegal sale of shabu is proof that the illicit
transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit
drug as evidence. [People v. Gonzales]
There are no provisions either in Republic Act No. 9165 or its Implementing Rules and
Regulations requiring that (1) the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet that should be
transmitted to PDEA must only be signed by the person who conducted the briefing; and (2)
the buy-bust money to be used in the actual buy-bust operation must be dusted with ultraviolet powder. The Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet and the use of dusted money are
not indispensable to prove the illegal sale of shabu. These two are not part of the elements of
the aforesaid offense. To repeat, in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like
shabu, what is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received shabu from the accusedappellant and the same was presented as evidence in court, [People v. Requiz, 376 Phil. 750,
760 (1999)] which the prosecution in this case was able to do so. As has been previously
discussed, all the elements of illegal sale of shabu were adequately proven and established by
the prosecution.
20
September 28,
2011
PDEA vs Brodett,
G.R. No. 196390
Petition for review
is denied.
Section 5, in relation to
Section 26(b), of Republic
Act No. 9165
The prosecutions failure to conduct the required photograph of the seized drugs in
compliance with the provision of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, will not
work to the advantage of appellant. Non-compliance thereto is not fatal and will not render
appellants arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. [Imson v.
People, G.R. No. 193003, 13 July 2011 citing People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, 27
June 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 436-437 and People v. Campos, G.R. No. 186526, 25 August
2010, 629 SCRA 462, 468.] As can be observed, the implementing rules offer some flexibility
when a proviso added that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items. [People v. Manlangit] Thus, what is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
[Imson v. People citing People v. Concepcion and People v. Campos]
The legal provision applicable to the confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments
of the unlawful act, including the properties or proceeds derived from illegal trafficking of
dangerous drugs and precursors and essential chemicals,is Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165.
There is no question, for even PDEA has itself pointed out, that the text of Section 20 of R. A.
No. 9165relevant to the confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the
unlawful act is similar to that ofArticle 45 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Court has interpreted and applied Article 45of the Revised Penal Codein People v. Jose,
[28]concerning the confiscation and forfeiture of the car used by the four accused when they
committed theforcible abduction with rape, although the car did not belong to any of them,
holding:
xxx Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code bars the
confiscation and forfeiture of an instrument or tool used in the
commission of the crime if such be the property of a third person not
liable for the offense, it is the sense of this Court that the order of the
court below for the confiscation of the car in question should be set
aside and that the said car should be ordered delivered to the
intervenor for foreclosure as decreed in the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of Manila in replevin case. xxx[No. L-28232, February
6, 1971, 37 SCRA 450.]
21
Such interpretation is extended by analogy to Section 20, supra. To bar the forfeiture of the
tools and instruments belonging to a third person,therefore, there must be an indictment
charging such third person either as a principal, accessory, or accomplice. Less than that will
not suffice to prevent the return of the tools and instruments to the third person, for a mere
suspicion of that persons participation is not sufficient ground for the court to order the
forfeiture of the goods seized.[I Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 15th Edition, pp. 638-639.]
August 31,
2011
People vs.
Mendoza, G.R.
No. 186387 Convicted
Section 5 and Section 11,

(R.A.) No. 9165
August 31,
2011
ABRAHAM
MICLAT, JR vs.
People, G.R. No.
176077 CONVICTED
Violation of Section 11,

(RA) No. 9165
Indeed, forfeiture, if warrantedpursuant to either Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code and
Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165, would be a part of the penalty to be prescribed. The
determination of whetheror not the car (or any other article confiscated in relation to the
unlawful act) would be subject of forfeiture could be made only when the judgment was to be
rendered in the proceedings. Section 20 is also clear as to this.
In the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, the following links must be established: first,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal
drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
[Ampatuan v. People, G.R. No. 183676, June 22, 2011, citing People v. Magpayo, G.R. No.
187069, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 441, 451 citing People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198,
January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.]
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a
judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including
the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in
which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the
articles procured.[People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 463,
476.]
the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with the rule is not fatal. It does not render
petitioners arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible.[People v.
Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 218, citing People v.
Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448.] What is essential is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[People v.
Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 218, citing People v.
Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448.]
22
August 31,
2011
People vs. Delos

Reyes, G.R. No.
174774, Acquitted
violation of Section 21 of
Article IV, in relation to
Section 16 of Article III, of
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070,
February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 556, 564.] Although not constrained to blindly accept the
findings of fact of trial courts, appellate courts can rest assured that such facts were gathered
from witnesses who presented their statements live and in person in open court. In cases where
conflicting sets of facts are presented, the trial courts are in the best position to recognize and
distinguish spontaneous declaration from rehearsed spiel, straightforward assertion from a
stuttering claim, definite statement from tentative disclosure, and to a certain degree, truth
from untruth.[People v. Willie Midenilla, et al., G.R. No. 186470, September 27, 2010.]
Guided by the settled rule that where the inculpatory facts admit of several interpretations,
one consistent with accused's innocence and another with his guilt, the evidence thus adduced
fail[ed] to meet the test of moral certainty,[People v. Mariano, 412 Phil. 252, 258 (2001).] we
find that the findings and conclusion of the RTC in its subsequent Order[64] dated January 12,
2004 (in which it acquitted Emmanuel de Claro) is more in keeping with the evidence on
record in this case. It bears to stress that the very same evidence were presented against
Emmanuel de Claro and accused-appellants; if the evidence is insufficient to convict the
former, then it is also insufficient to convict the latter.
There are also material inconsistencies between the police-witnesses sworn statements
following accused-appellants arrest and their testimonies before the RTC.
August 31, 2011
Aurelio vs. People,

violation of Sections 5 and 11,

(R.A.) No. 9165
Furthermore, even assuming that the prosecutions version of the events that took place on the
night of February 17, 2000 were true, it still failed to establish probable cause to justify the in
flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants and search of accused-appellants persons,
incidental to their arrests, resulting in the seizure of the shabu in accused-appellants
possession.
In a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and, (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is crucial to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is evidence of the transaction, as well as the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. On
the other hand, in a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, there must be proof that (1) the
accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such
possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in
possession of the drug.[People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 295 (2003).]
The Inconsistencies in the Testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses are Trivial.
23
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses that refer to trivial and insignificant details do not destroy their
credibility.[People v. Mationg, 407 Phil. 771, 787 (2001)] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to
strengthen rather than diminish the prosecutions case as they tend to erase any suspicion that the testimonies
have been rehearsed thereby negating any misgiving that the same were perjured.[People v. Garcia, 424
Phil. 158, 184-185 (2002).]
August 15,
2011
Sy vs. People, G.R.


Republic Act (RA) No.
9165
Testimonies of witnesses need only to corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning
the principal occurrence. Besides, it is to be expected that the testimony of witnesses regarding the same
incident may be inconsistent in some aspects because different persons may have different impressions or
recollection of the same incident.[People v. Sy Bing Yok, 368 Phil. 326, 336 (1999).]
As to the admissibility of the seized drug in evidence, it is necessary for us to ascertain
whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful.[Valdez v. People,
G.R. No. 170180, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 611, 622.]
It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed
to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070,
February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 556, 564.]
August 10,
2011
People vs.
Alejandro, G.R.
No. 176350,
Acquitted
Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9165
In addition, buttressing the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, the
arresting officers substantially complied with the rules on the custody and disposition of
evidence recovered from petitioner.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs under Section 5 of R.A.
No. 9165 are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in the prosecution
for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or
substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by
presenting the object of the illegal transaction.[See People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029,
August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 308.] In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance
itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and proof of its existence is vital to sustain a
judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 179213,
September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 92, 101.] To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity
and integrity of the seized drug, the evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug
presented in court is the very same illicit drug actually recovered from the appellant;
otherwise, the prosecution for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails.[See People v.
24
Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 308.]

The Chain of Custody Rule and the Marking Requirement
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165,
defines chain of custody as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Thus, crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related
items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking means the placing by the
apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized.
[People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.] Long before
Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities
to immediately mark the seized drugs casts reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus
delicti.[ee People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 357-358.]
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the
seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will
use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized
from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus
preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.[ee People v. Coreche, G.R.
No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 357-358.]
In the present case, the records do not show that the apprehending team marked the seized
items with their initials immediately upon confiscation. In Sanchez,[People v. Sanchez, G.R.
No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.] we explained that consistency with the chain
of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation. We clarified in People v.
Manuel Resurreccion[G.R. No. 186380, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 510, 520.] that
[m]arking upon immediate confiscation does not exclude the possibility that marking can be
at the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the present case, the testimonies of
the apprehending officers do not indicate that they ever marked the seized items, either at the
place of seizure or at the police station. How the police could have omitted such a basic and
vital procedure in the initial handling of the seized drugs truly baffles us. Going back to what
we earlier discussed, succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the markings as reference.
25
If at the first instance or opportunity, the apprehending team did not mark the seized item/s,
then there is nothing to identify it later on as it passes from one hand to another.
The second link in the chain of custody is the turnover of the confiscated drug from PO1
Mengote to the police station. To recall, after PO1 Mengote allegedly received the plastic
sachet from the appellant, he made the pre-arranged signal to his companions. The other
members of the buy-bust team approached the appellant, introduced themselves as police
officers, and arrested him. Thereafter, they brought him and the confiscated item to the police
station.
Notably, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the person who took
custody of the seized item at the police station. Although the request for laboratory
examination was signed by P/Supt. Fegarido, the Chief of the District Drug Enforcement
Group, we cannot assume that he was the person who received the seized item from PO1
Mengote, in the absence of any testimony proving such fact.
For the succeeding links in the chain of custody, the evidence shows that the confiscated item
was forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory by one SPO2 Pepano, and then received by a
certain Relos. P/Insp. Gural examined the submitted specimen, and found it positive for the
presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. As previously discussed, there was a missing
link in the custody of the confiscated item after it left the possession of PO1 Mengote. The
police did not only fail to mark the specimen immediately upon seizure; it likewise failed to
identify the police officer to whose custody the confiscated item was given at the police
station. Thus, we cannot conclude with certainty that the item seized from the appellant was
the same as that presented for laboratory examination and, later on, presented in court.
Non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph 1,Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
9165
Lest the chain of custody rule be misunderstood, we clarify that non-compliance with the
prescribed procedural requirements does not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the
items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held to be valid, provided that (a) there is a
justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are shown to have been properly preserved. These conditions, however, were
not met in the present case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification
for the failure of the police to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the
seized items. As we held in People v. Ronaldo De Guzman y Danzil,[G.R. No. 186498, March
26
26, 2010, 616 SCRA 652.] the failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165
and its IRR must be adequately explained. The justifiable ground for the non-compliance must
be proven as a fact. The Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.
No Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties
In the present case, the procedural lapses by the apprehending team in the handling of the
seized items from their failure to mark it immediately upon confiscation, to their failure to
inventory and photograph it in the presence of the accused, or his representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official, without offering
any justifiable ground effectively negated the presumption of regularity.
August 3,
2011
People vs. Fermin,

G.R. No. 179344,
Acquitted
No. 9165
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedures is required because of the unique
characteristic of illegal drugs, rendering them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily
open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Hence, we have
the rules on the measures to be observed during and after the seizure, during the custody and
transfer of the drugs for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court.[People
v. Magpayo, G.R. No. 187069, 20 October 2010.]
The following are the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court.[People v. Magpayo, G.R. No. 187069, 20 October 2010.]
As provided by the implementing rules and jurisprudence, strict compliance of the requisites
under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 can be disregarded as long as the evidentiary value
and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved; and its preservation can be well
established if the chain of custody of illegal drug was unbroken. The break is clear in this case.
The fundamentals of a criminal prosecution were, indeed, disregarded. In considering a
criminal case, it is critical to start with the laws own starting perspective on the status of the
accused in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charged laid unless the
contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.[People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, 19 January
2011; People v. Sanchez, supra note 42 at 207.] The burden lies on the prosecution to
overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. To
27
repeat, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the
defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense
may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. In which case, the presumption
prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted.[People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No.
177222, 29 October 2008, 570 SCRA 273, 283.]
July 20, 2011
People vs. ALLEN

UDTOJAN
MANTALABA,
G.R. No. 186227,
Convicted

Act (RA) 9165
July 13, 2011
People vs. JAIME

GATLABAYAN,
G.R. No. 186467 ACQUITTED
violation of Section 5 (1),

(R.A.) No. 9165
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the two accused. The
rule that high respect must be accorded the lower courts in their findings of facts cannot be
misused to diminish the required evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence of the
accused as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as
there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.[25] Its noncompliance will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible.[26] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.[27] In this particular case, it is undisputed that police
officers Pajo and Simon were members of the buy-bust operation team. The fact that it was
Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo who signed the letter-request for laboratory examination does
not in any way affect the integrity of the items confiscated. All the requirements for the
proper chain of custody had been observed.
The narcotic substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of
its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore of prime importance
that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt.
[People v. Frondozo, G.R. No. 177164, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 407, 417.] Otherwise stated,
it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is
the same substance offered in evidence before the court. Thus, every fact necessary to
constitute the offense must be established. The chain of custody requirement ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[People v. De Leon,
G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 132.]
The prosecution evidence also failed to identify the person who marked the sachet, how the
same was done, and who witnessed the marking. In People v. Martinez,[G.R. No. 191366,
December 13, 2010.] the Court ruled that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure
that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in
evidence - should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2)
immediately upon confiscation in order to protect innocent persons from dubious and
28
concocted searches, and the apprehending officers as well from harassment suits based on
planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.
July 6, 2011
People vs. Gaspar,

G.R. No. 192816,
Convicted
violation of (1) Section 5,

paragraph 1, Article II
(Illegal Sale of Shabu);3
(2) Section 11, 2nd
paragraph, No. 3, Article II
(Illegal Possession of
Shabu);4 and (3) Section
12, Article II (Possession
of Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs),5 all of
While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain
becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to susceptibility
of the seized drug to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.
[G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 52, 61.] Hence, each and every link in the
custody must be established beginning from the seizure of the shabu from the accused during
the entrapment operation until its submission by the forensic chemist to the RTC. Indeed, the
Court cannot entirely discount the likelihood or at least the possibility that there could have
been alteration, tampering or substitution of substance in the chain of custody of the subject
shabu, inadvertently or otherwise, from another case with a similar narcotic substance seized
or subjected for chemical analysis.
Drug pushing, especially the ones done on a small scale, happens instantly. The illegal
transaction takes place after the offer to buy is accepted and the exchange is made. Since
Gaspar was already about to enter the house, he may not have intended to keep the door open
when PO1 Soreta approached him to carry out a sale transaction. Thus, at the time the arrest
was made, it would not have been improbable for the drug paraphernalia to be seen from
outside because of the open door.
In drug related cases, what is relevant is the agreement and acts constituting the sale and
delivery of the dangerous drug between the seller and buyer and not the existing familiarity
between them. It is of common knowledge that pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle
prohibited drugs in the open like any articles of commerce. (People v. Merabueno, G.R. No.
87179, 14 December 1994, 239 SCRA 197.) Drug pushers do not confine their nefarious trade
to known customers and complete strangers are accommodated provided they have the money
to pay.(People v. Solon, 314 Phil. 495 (1995).) Thus, it is not improbable that Gaspar sold
shabu to a complete stranger like PO1 Soreta who presented himself as a buyer.
Also, while an accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the
evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own strength and not rely on the weakness of the
evidence of the defense.(People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569, 28 November 2007, 539
SCRA 306.) In this case, the quantum of evidence necessary to prove appellants guilt beyond
reasonable doubt had been sufficiently met. Thus, the prosecution was able to overcome
appellants constitutional right to be presumed innocent.
July 6, 2011
People vs. Laylo,
violation of Section 26(b),
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the
29
G.R. No. 192235
June 15, 2011
People vs. Cruz,

G.R. No. 187047,
Convicted
Article II (Attempted Sale

of Dangerous Drugs)3 of

11,[6] Article II of
buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment.(People v. Llamado, G.R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, citing
People v. Ong, G.R. No. 175940, 6 February 2008, 544 SCRA 123.)
Here, appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission of the
intended crime by showing the substance to PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor.(People v. Adam, 459
Phil. 676 (2003). The sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves and
placed appellant and Ritwal under arrest. From the testimonies of the witnesses, the
prosecution was able to establish that there was an attempt to sell shabu. In addition, the
plastic sachets were presented in court as evidence of corpus delicti. Thus, the elements of the
crime charged were sufficiently established by evidence.
Jurisprudence clearly set the essential elements to be established in the prosecution for illegal
sale of shabu, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. Succinctly, the
delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked
money successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction.[People v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504,
513 (2002).] What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[People v. Requiz, G.R. No.
130922, 19 November 1999, 318 SCRA 635, 647.] In this case, the prosecution successfully
established the aforesaid elements beyond moral certainty.
On the legality of appellants warrantless arrest, it bears stressing that he was arrested in an
entrapment operation where he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. An arrest made
after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid
warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court,[Teodosio v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 124346, 8 June 2004, 431 SCRA 194, 207.]
In People v. Sembrano[G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 341.] citing People
v. Agulay,[G.R. No. 181747, 26 September 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 594.] this Court held that a
buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid
and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out with due regard for
constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, as in this case, deserves judicial
sanction.[People v. Sembrano, supra note 34 at 341.] Moreover, in a buy-bust operation, the
violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the same are not
only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violator and consequently search
him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime .
[People v. Juatan, G.R. No. 104378, 20 August 1996, 260 SCRA 532, 538.]
30
Denial or frame up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Law. As such, it has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just
as easily be concocted.[People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 86 (2000).] It should not accord a
redoubtable sanctuary to a person accused of drug dealing unless the evidence of such frame
up is clear and convincing.[People v. Lising, G.R. No. 125510, 21 July 1997, 275 SCRA 804,
811.] Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute appellant
in the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled
to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of appellant
that he had been framed up.[People v. Chua, G.R. No. 133789, 23 August 2001, 363 SCRA
562, 582-583.] Neither can appellants claim of alleged extortion by the police operatives be
entertained. Absent any proof, appellants assertion of extortion allegedly committed by the
police officers could not be successfully interposed. It remains one of those standard, wornout, and impotent excuses of malefactors prosecuted for drug offenses. What appellant could
have done was to prove his allegation and not just casually air it.[People v. Chua, G.R. No.
133789, 23 August 2001, 363 SCRA 562, 582-583.]
In this case, appellant failed to substantiate such defense. Other than his self-serving
allegation, no other evidence whether testimonial or documentary has been adduced by him to
strengthen his claim. No one was ever presented by the defense to corroborate the version of
events proffered by the appellant. Hence, appellants defense of bare denial or frame up is
highly unacceptable.
June 11, 2011
Ulep vs. People,

G.R. No. 183849,
Acquitted
aggravated illegal
possession of shabu
Granting arguendo that the marked money was not previously recorded in the police blotter,
the same is not fatal to the prosecutions case primarily because the poseur-buyer testified in
regards to his transaction with the appellant coupled with the presentation of the drug seized
from the latter.
The disparity in the testimonies of those witnesses is too serious to be simply brushed aside.
Further, since custody and possession of the drugs usually change from the time they are
seized to the time they are presented in court, it is indispensable that, if the drugs are already
in sealed plastic sachets, the police officer involved immediately place identifying marks on
the cover. If the drugs are not in a sealed container, the officer is to place them in a plastic
container, seal the container, and put his marking on the cover. In this way there is assurance
that the drugs would reach the crime laboratory analyst in the same condition it was seized
from the accused.[People v. Pajarin, G.R. No. 190640, January 12, 2011.]
31
This did not happen here. None of the officers involved in the seizure marked the
plastic sachets of alleged drugs. The markings took place at the police station already and it is
not clear who made them. Tuzon testified that Labutong placed the markings; Labutong said
that SPO2 Butay did it. Prompt marking of the seized items is vital because it serves as the
starting point in the custodial link and succeeding handlers of the specimens often use the
marking as reference.[People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350,
357.] Since the officers in this case could not even agree as to who made the required
marking, then it would be difficult for the Court to rest easy that the specimens presented
before the trial court were the same specimens seized from Ulep. These lapses cast a serious
doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.
[People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001).]
June 8, 2011
People vs. Dela

Cruz, G.R. No.
185717 - Acquitted
Republic Act No. (RA)
9165
The Court has recently held that drug enforcement agencies should continually train their
officers and agents to observe the rules governing drug-related cases and transfer out those
who would not. Failure to observe these basic rules results not only in consequent acquittals
but also in loss of precious time to futile exercise.[People v. Pajarin]
But where there are other pieces of evidence putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust
operation, these irregularities take on more significance which are, well nigh, fatal to the
prosecution.
Putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation are the uncontroverted testimonies of
Buencamino and Lepiten, which gave credence to accused-appellants denial and frame-up
theory. The Court is not unaware that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice
of planting evidence to extract information from or even to harass civilians.[People v. Daria,
Jr., G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 688, 709.] This Court has been issuing
cautionary warnings to trial courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an
innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.[Sales v.
People, G.R. No. 182296, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 680, 686]
The defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the
presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their
official duties.[Sales v. People, G.R. No. 182296, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 680, 686]
Nonetheless, such a defense may be given credence when there is sufficient evidence or proof
making it to be very plausible or true. We are of the view that accused-appellants defenses of
denial and frame-up are credible given the circumstances of the case. Indeed, jurisprudence
has established that the defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecutions
32
evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt,[People v. Mejia, G.R.
No. 185723, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 356, 374.] as in the instant case. At the very least,
there is reasonable doubt that there was a buy-bust operation conducted and that accusedappellant sold the seized shabu. After all, a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the
evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense.[Dizon v. People, G.R. No.
144026, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 593, 613; citing People v. Fronda, G.R. No. 130602,
March 15, 2000, 328 SCRA 185, 194.]
Moreover, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the requisite chain of custody of the
seized specimen. Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
[People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 179213, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 92, 101-102; People v.
Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762, 777.] The CA found an
unbroken chain of custody of the purportedly confiscated shabu specimen. However, the
records belie such conclusion.
June 6, 2011
People vs.
Bautista, G.R. No.
191266 Convicted
violating Section 5, Article

II of Republic Act No.
(RA) 9165
It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very
same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established
with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.[Sales v.
People, supra note 28, at 688-689] This, the prosecution failed to do. The prosecution must
offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody.
[Catuiran v. People, G.R. No. 175647, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 567, 580.]
The chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug was properly and clearly established;
consequently, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug were
properly preserved by the apprehending police officers
In cases of dangerous drugs, what is important and necessary is for the prosecution to prove
with moral certainty that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the
accused [be] the same item recovered from his possession.[Cacao v. People, G.R. No.
180870, January 22, 2010, 610 SCRA 636, 644-45.]
In this case, it is undoubted that the witnesses for the prosecution clearly established such
essential requirement. Right after the buy-bust operation on October 15, 2004, accusedappellant and Marcos were immediately brought to the DAID-SOTG office. And upon their
arrival, PO2 Ruiz marked the specimens seized from accused-appellant with specific proper
markings and turned them over to the investigator, who in turn referred them at once to the
33
June 6, 2011
People vs. ARNEL

BENTACAN
NAVARRETE,
G.R. No. 185211 ,
acquitted
violating Section 5, Article

II of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9165
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination. The testimony of PO2 Ruiz
clearly establishes this requirement.
Owing to the built-in dangers of abuse that a buy-bust operation entails, the law prescribes
specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, independently of the general
procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation and of the
accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.[People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832,
October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 208.]
The records of the case indicate that even the basics of the outlined procedure in the custody
of seized drugs was not observed.
Non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Sec. 21 of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of
2002 is not, of course, always fatal as the law admits of exceptions.
June 1, 2011
People vs.
VILLAHERMOS
A, G.R. No.
186465 CONVICTED
violating Sections 5, 11
and 12, Article II of
May 30, 2011
San Juan vs.

People, G.R. No.
177191, Acquitted
violation of Section 5,[4]

(R.A.) No. 9165.
May 30, 2011
People vs. Alivio,

G.R. No. 177771,
convicted
violating Sections 5, 11
9165
The apprehending team in the present case has not, however, shown any justifiable ground to
exempt it from complying with the legal requirements. To impose benediction on such
shoddy police work, absent exempting circumstances, would only spawn further abuses.
violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was already consummated the
moment appellant was found in possession of the said articles without the necessary license or
prescription. What is primordial is the proof of the illegal drugs and paraphernalia
recovered from the petitioner.[Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, 463 Phil. 914, 926 (2003).]
there is no requirement that prior surveillance should be conducted before a buy-bust
operation can be undertaken. Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an
entrapment or a buy-bust operation, there being no fixed or textbook method for
conducting one.[People v. Eugenio, 443 Phil. 411, 422-423 (2003).] It is enough that the
elements of the crime are proven by credible witnesses and other pieces of evidence.[id]
Transport as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean: to carry or convey
from one place to another.[People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 138929, October 2, 2001, 366
SCRA 471, 485.] The essential element of the charge is the movement of the dangerous drug
from one place to another. In the present case, although petitioner and his co-accused were
arrested inside a car, the car was not in transit when they were accosted. From the facts found
by the RTC, that car was parked and stationary.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers
who conducted the buy-bust operation. Thus, we generally defer to the assessment on this
point by the trial court as it had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses, their
demeanor, and their credibility on the witness stand.[11] Our independent examination of the
34
records shows no compelling reason to depart from this rule.

The defense failed to sufficiently prove the alleged familiarity of appellant Alivio with PO2
Laro. The testimony of defense witness Atty. Fajardo failed to give out specific details on the
dates and occasions when he supposedly talked to PO2 Laro in the presence of Alivio.[19]
Moreover, the evidence also shows a time gap between Alivios employment with Atty.
Fajardo (from 2000 to 2001) and the occurrence of the buy-bust operation (in 2003). As
against these sketchy claims, PO2 Laro testified that Alivio failed to recognize him during the
buy-bust operation.[20]
In any event, in Gwyn Quinicot v. People,[G.R. No. 179700, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 458.]
we held that it is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the buyer, but the
agreement and acts constituting the sale and delivery of the illegal drugs, that is crucial in
drug-related cases:
What matters in drug related cases is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the
buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the dangerous
drug. Besides, drug pushers, especially small quantity or retail pushers, sell their prohibited
wares to anyone who can pay for the same, be they strangers or not. It is of common
knowledge that pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle prohibited drugs in the open
like any article of commerce. Drug pushers do no confine their nefarious trade to known
customers and complete strangers are accommodated provided they have the money to pay.
[22] [Citations omitted]
In ascertaining the identity of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia presented in court as
the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (a) the prescribed
procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with or falls
within the saving clause provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in
the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items.
The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal
drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the accused until the
time they are presented in court. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1,
Series of 2002 defines the chain of custody rule in the following manner:
b. Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized
35
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals

or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in
the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in
court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody
of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody [was] of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody made in the course
of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition[.]
In this case, although the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No.
9165 was not strictly complied with, we find that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team under the chain of custody rule.
April 11, 2011
People vs. Roble,

G.R. No. 192188,
acquitted
Section 5,[3] Article II of

9165
The appellants merely denied the buy-bust sale and their possession of the shabu and the drug
paraphernalia. They claimed that they were framed by the police who took their earnings and
forcibly took them to the police station. In light of the positive and credible testimony and the
concrete evidence showing the existence of the buy-bust operation, these defenses are
unworthy of belief. Dela Vegas injuries alone cannot rebut the consistent evidence that the
appellants were arrested pursuant to a buy-bust operation. We particularly note in this regard
that the participating policemen denied that they previously knew the appellants and that they
entertained ulterior or illicit motives to frame them.
In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove all the elements of the crime with moral
certainty.
A careful perusal of the testimony of PO2 Laurel readily reveals that there is serious doubt as
to the identity of the seller.
Even more doubtful is the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug itself. In prosecutions
for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, [t]he existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua
non for conviction x x x.[People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 647,
654.] Thus, it must be established that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is
the same substance offered in court. The chain of custody requirement performs this function
in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
[Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.]
36
Similarly, the prosecution failed to follow the requisites found in Sec. 21 of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which outlines the post-procedure in taking custody
of seized drugs.
Even though non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR is excusable, such cannot be relied upon
when there is lack of any acceptable justification for failure to do so.
In the instant case, no justifiable grounds were put forth by the prosecution for the procedural
lapses.
April 6, 2011
People vs.
ALBERTO
BACUS
ALCUIZAR, G.R.
No. 189980,
Acquitted
illegal possession of
dangerous drugs in
No. 9165
Summing up all these circumstances, it behooves this Court not to blindingly accept the
flagrantly wanting evidence of the prosecution. Undoubtedly, the prosecution failed to meet
the required quantum of evidence sufficient to support a conviction, in which case, the
constitutional presumption of innocence prevails. As we have held, When moral certainty as
to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter
of right.[51]
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity
of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement
necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not
readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident
or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the
seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same
illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for
possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.[People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, 15
August 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 267 citing People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, 24 April 2009,
586 SCRA 647, 655-656.]
The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be done in the
presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they
are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence.[People
v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, 15 October 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 218.] In Lopez v.
People[G.R. No. 184037, 29 September 2009, 601 SCRA 316.] citing Catuiran v. People,
[G.R. No. 175647, 8 May 2009, 587 SCRA 567.] this Court held that:
It would include testimony about every link in the chain,
from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into
37
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and
what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to
the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain
to have possession of the same. Indeed, it is from the testimony of
every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable
assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one
and the same as that seized from the accused.[Lopez v. People]
The aforesaid step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and
concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits
based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.[People v. Sanchez]
Adherence to the guidelines under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 relating to custody
and disposition of confiscated or seized dangerous drugs accounts for a crucial link in the
chain of custody rule.
March 14,
2011
People vs. BAIDA

SALAK y
BANGKULAS,G.
R. No. 181249,
convicted
violation of Section 15,[4]

(R.A.) No. 6425 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended by R.A.
No. 7659
Verily, the failure of the police officers to mark the dangerous drugs immediately after their
seizure and the vague recollection of SPO1 Agadier concerning the custody of the drugs from
the residence of appellant up to the time it was submitted to the crime laboratory constitute a
huge and significant gap in the chain of custody which substantially affects the identity of the
corpus delicti..
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as amended by Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990 reads:
Subject: Amendment of Board Regulation No. 7, series of
1974, prescribing the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited
and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses, and articles specially
designed for the use thereof.
xxxx
SECTION 1. All prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments,
apparatuses and articles specially designed for the use thereof when
unlawfully used or found in the possession of any person not
authorized to have control and disposition of the same, or when found
secreted or abandoned, shall be seized or confiscated by any national,
38
provincial or local law enforcement agency. Any apprehending team

having initial custody and control of said drugs and[/or] paraphernalia,
should immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same
physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the
accused, if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof. Thereafter the seized drugs and paraphernalia shall be
immediately brought to a properly equipped government laboratory
for a qualitative and quantitative examination.
The apprehending team shall: (a) within forty-eight (48) hours
from the seizure inform the Dangerous Drugs Board by telegram of
said seizure, the nature and quantity thereof, and who has present
custody of the same, and (b) submit to the Board a copy of the mission
investigation report within fifteen (15) days from completion of the
investigation.[As cited in People v. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805, April
27, 2004, 428 SCRA 51, 69 and People v. Magat, G.R. No. 179939,
September 29, 2008, 567 SCRA 86, 95-96.]
The records do not show that the NBI-STF team complied with the
aforementioned procedure. Nevertheless, such failure is insufficient ground to acquit
appellant.
In People v. Gonzaga,[G.R. No. 184952, October 11, 2010.] wherein the very
same issue was raised, we explained that:
While it appears that the buy-bust team failed to comply
strictly with the procedure outlined above, the same does not overturn
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty. A
violation of the regulation is a matter strictly between the
Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and is totally
irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case since the
commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is
considered consummated once the sale or transaction is
established and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the
arresting officers inability to conform to the regulations of the
Dangerous Drugs Board.
Further, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be
preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that
the evidence has been tampered with.[47]
39
Moreover, non-compliance with the said regulation is not fatal to the prosecution as it does not
render appellants arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of herein appellant.
[People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 645.]
It is also worthy to note that appellant never alleged that the drugs presented during the trial
have been tampered with. Neither did appellant challenge the admissibility of the seized items
when these were formally offered as evidence. In the course of the trial, the seized shabu were
duly marked, made the subject of examination and cross-examination, and eventually offered
as evidence, yet at no instance did the appellant manifest or even hint that there were lapses in
the safekeeping of the seized items as to affect their admissibility, integrity and evidentiary
value. It was only during her appeal that she raised the issue of non-compliance with the said
regulation. Settled is the rule that objections to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised
for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he
must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for
the first time on appeal.[People v. Araneta, G.R. No. 191064, October 20, 2010, p. 13; and
People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 84, citing People v.
Hernandez, supra note 47.]
It should also be noted that appellant failed to present evidence to show that the NBI-STF
team was impelled by improper motives to testify against her. She merely gave the bare
assertion that she was arrested by the NBI operatives to be used as leverage in pressuring her
husband to divulge the whereabouts of alias Boy Life.
March 14,
2011
People vs. Soriaga,

G.R. No. 191392,
Convicted
Section 5, Article II,

9165
Finally, as to appellants argument that she should have been acquitted since the prosecution
failed to present the buy-bust money used during the operation, again, the argument is without
merit. Failure to present the buy-bust money is not indispensable in drug cases since it is
merely corroborative evidence, and the absence thereof does not create a hiatus in the
evidence for the prosecution provided the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and
the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence
requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.[People v. Gonzaga,
supra note 45 at 17.]
First of all, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited or dangerous drugs
is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation of the corpus
delicti as evidence.
40
The RTC and the CA both found the above elements to have been satisfactorily proved by the
prosecution in the present case.
In the absence of any showing that substantial or relevant facts bearing on the elements of the
crime have been misapplied or overlooked, the Court can only accord full credence to such
factual assessment of the trial court which had the distinct advantage of observing the
demeanor and conduct of the witnesses at the trial.[People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070,
February 24, 2010.]
Absent any proof of motive to falsely charge an accused of such a grave offense, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court
with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over his bare allegation.[People v.
Rodante de Leon, supra note 8 at 136.]
March 2, 2011
People vs.
BERTHA
PRESAS y
TOLENTINO,
G.R. No. 182525,
convicted
Illegal possession, illegal

sale of shabu
On the issue of non-compliance with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized
drugs, the rule is that it does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[People v. Jakar Mapan Le, G.R. No. 188976, June
29, 2010.] The requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) are not inflexible. What is essential is "the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused."[13]
Assuming arguendo that there is no stipulation of facts, the non-presentation of the forensic
chemist is not fatal to the prosecutions case. In People v. Quebral,[G.R. No. 185379, 27
November 2009, 606 SCRA 247.] this Court explained:
The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous
drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the
prohibited drug is essential.
Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the
testimony of the laboratory analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that
the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered
prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation.
Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court,
entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are
prima facie evidence of the facts they state.[Id. citing Malillin v.
41
People, G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632; People
v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 586-587
citing People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 93-94 (2000).]
January 31,
2011
People vs.
RUFINO
VICENTE, JR. y
CRUZ - Convicted
9165
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical
inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, does not
automatically render accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. A
proviso was added in the implementing rules that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items. The same provision also states that it must still
be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the evidence have been preserved.[People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, 17 October
2008,569 SCRA 879, 898-899.]
Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25,
2010, 611 SCRA 118, 133.] Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA
9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended
persons is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buybust operation.[People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 304, 325.]
We have thus emphasized that what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.[People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, December 23, 2009, 609
SCRA 304, 325.]
People v. Sultan[G.R. No. 187737, July 5, 2010.] explains further:
In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act No. 9165 adequately reflects the
desire of the law to excuse from the rigid tenor of Section 21 situations wherein slight
infractions in methodology are present but the integrity and identity of the specimen remains
intact.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers
who conducted the buy-bust operation.[People v. Villamin, G.R. No. 175590, February 9,
2010, 612 SCRA 91,106.] Oft-repeated is the rule that in cases involving violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are
police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
42
January 31,
2011
People vs.
SEVILLANO
DELOS REYES,
G.R. No. 181039 Acquitted
9165
unless there is evidence to the contrary.[People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070, February 24,
2010, 613 SCRA 556, 564.] Absent any indication that the police officers were ill-motivated
in testifying against the accused, full credence should be given to their testimonies.[People v.
Gum-Oyen, G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 668, 678.]
Considering the illegal drugs unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily
identifiable and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or
otherwise, there is a need to strictly comply with procedure in its seizure and custody. [People
v. Kamad, G.R. No.174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 304-305.] Section 21,
paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, provides such procedure.
Although there were elected public officials from the barangay who were present during the
buy-bust operation, nothing in his testimony, nor in the facts stipulated by the parties shows
that there was physical inventory of the seized items or that there was photographing thereof
in the presence of appellant, his representative or counsel, a representative of media and the
Department of Justice, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
Of course, People v. Pringas[G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842.]
teaches that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal.
Mere failure to comply with Section 21 will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. But what is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[G.R. No. 175928,
August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842.] This function in buy-bust operations is performed by
the chain of custody requirement which ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed. Hence, in a long line of cases, we have considered it fatal for the
prosecution to fail to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the
same one allegedly seized from the accused.[People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15,
2008, 569 SCRA 194, 213. Citations omitted.] Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 defines chain of custody
as follows:
While this regulation took effect on October 18, 2002 (or 2 days after the alleged commission
of the crime charged), it is however useful in determining if the integrity of the evidence was
preserved in the instant case.
Said gaps in the chain cannot be disregarded or overlooked by this Court. As held
in the case of People v. Almorfe[G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 52, 61.]:
43
x x x Although Janet identified Exhibits C-1, C-2 and C-3 as

the drugs seized from appellants which she claimed to have marked
immediately after the bust, she did not disclose the name of the
investigator to whom she turned them over. And there is no showing
if that same investigator was the one who turned the drugs over to
the forensic chemist, or if the forensic chemist whose name
appears in the physical science report was the one who received
them from that investigator, or where the drugs were kept for
safekeeping after the chemical test was conducted up to the time
they were presented in court.
It bears recalling that while the parties stipulated on the
existence of the sachets, they did not stipulate with respect to their
source.
People v. Sanchez teaches that the testimony of the forensic chemist which is stipulated
upon merely covers the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and the
result of the examination, but not the manner the specimen was handled before it came
to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left his possession. (Underscoring in
the original omitted; emphasis supplied.)
With crucial portions of the chain of custody not clearly accounted for, reasonable doubt is
created as to the origins of the shabu presented in court. Lingering doubt exists whether the
specimen seized from appellant was the specimen brought to the crime laboratory and
eventually offered in court as evidence.
January 31,
2011
People vs.
EVANGELINE
SOBANGEE y
EDAO, G.R. No.
9165
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot be availed of in this
case to supply the missing links as the presumption is effectively negated by to the buy-bust
teams failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and to show that the integrity of
the corpus delicti has been preserved. As a general rule, the testimonies of the police officers
who apprehended the accused are accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption
that they have performed their duties regularly. But when the performance of their duties is
tainted with failure to comply with the procedure and guidelines prescribed, the presumption
is effectively destroyed.[People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010, 616 SCRA
652, 669.]
The inconsistencies referred to are inconsequential. What is important is that the prosecution
was able to establish the key elements needed for a conviction. In order to successfully
prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the
following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and
44
186120, convicted
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[People v. Miguel, G.R. No. 180505,
June 29, 2010.]
The defense opposes the verdict since the following details presented by the prosecution were
inconsistent: the date of the buy-bust operation, the time the buy-bust team left their office, the
stops made on the way to the target area, the location of the operatives during the buy-bust,
where the seized items were marked, the denomination of the buy-bust money, the identity of
the operative who informed accused-appellant of her constitutional rights, and the identity of
the alleged confidential informant.
January 26,
2011
People vs. NENE

QUIAMANLON y
MALOG,
Convicted

Act No. (RA) 9165
These pieces of information, however, do not destroy the foundation that the
prosecution has built in proving accused-appellants culpability. These are but irrelevant
inconsistencies that do not take away the credibility of the police officers who testified against
accused-appellant. Considering there were five (5) police officers who testified on the buybust operation, one can hardly expect their testimonies to be in perfect agreement. As held in
the past, it is perhaps too much to hope that different eyewitnesses shall give, at all times,
testimonies that are in all fours with the realities on the ground. Minor discrepancies in their
testimonies are, in fact, to be expected; they neither vitiate the essential integrity of the
evidence in its material entirety nor reflect adversely on the credibility of witnesses.[People v.
Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 386.] For a successful
appeal, the inconsistencies brought up should pertain to that crucial moment when the accused
was caught selling shabu, not to peripheral matters.[People v. Razul, G.R. No. 146470,
November 22, 2002, 392 SCRA 553, 571.] Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate
each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence.[People v.
Tuan, G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010.]
As established in PO3 Villamors testimony, a buy-bust operation took place. Being the
poseur-buyer, he positively identified the seller of a plastic sachet containing a white
crystalline substance for a sum of PhP 500. The seller turned out to be Quiamanlon. Further,
aside from substantially corroborating PO3 Villamors testimony, the testimony of PO3
Magcalayo has shown that a subsequent laboratory examination on the contents of the
confiscated plastic sachets confirmed that they are indeed methylamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu.
Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such
possession. Thus, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of
knowledge or animus possidendi.[Buenaventura v. People, G.R. No. 171578, August 8, 2007,
45
529 SCRA 500, 513.] In the instant case, Quiamanlon failed to discharge such burden.
Indeed, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence
of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material.[People v. Doria,
G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668, 718.] Thus, it is vital that the identity of
the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty. The fact that the substance bought or
seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must also be
established with the same degree of certitude.[People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23,
2009, 593 SCRA 743, 762.] It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement
performs its function. It ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed.[Id.; citing Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553
SCRA 619, 632.]
Undeniably, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[People v. Cortez, supra note 42, at 763.] What is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 on the handling and
disposition of seized dangerous drugs is clear on this matter.
The custodial chain rule is not to be rigorously applied, provided the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Thus, the
supposed procedural infirmities alleged by Quiamanlon with regard to the custody,
photographing, inventory, and marking of the seized items do not, in any manner, affect the
prosecution of the instant case and do not render her arrest illegal or the items seized from her
inadmissible.
January 26,
People vs.
Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing
of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[People v. Ventura,
G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562; citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No.
181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 595.] In this case, Quiamanlon bears the
burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption
of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that they
properly discharged their duties.[Id] Failing to discharge such burden, there can be no doubt
that the drugs seized from Quiamanlon were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory.
Evidently, the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized
drugs.
Essentially, accused-appellant pegs almost all of her arguments on the fact that the police
46
2011
January 26,
2011
JACQUILINE
PAMBID y
CORTEZ, G.R.
No. 192237,
convicted
People vs. Dela

Rosa, GR No.
185166, CONVICTED

Act No. (RA) 9165
officers failed to properly mark, inventory, and photograph the prohibited items allegedly
seized from her. She argues that as a result of this failure, there is doubt as to the identity and
integrity of the drugs and that there was a break in the chain of custody of the evidence.
Such argument cannot prosper.
Illegal sale and illegal

possession of marijuana in
violation of Sec 5 and 11,
Article II RA 9165
Evidently, the law itself lays down exceptions to its requirements. Thus, non-compliance with
the above-mentioned requirements is not fatal. In fact, it has been ruled time and again that
non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible.[People
v. De Mesa, G.R. No. 188570, July 6, 2010; People v. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, June 16,
2010.] What is imperative is the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the
seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.[People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 636.]
This Court has consistently pronounced that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any
prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private, as well as in public places, even in
the daytime. Indeed, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse,
openly defiant of the law. Hence, what matters is not the existing familiarity between the
buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the
acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs. [People v. Requiz, 376 Phil.
750, 759-760 (1999).]
In People v. Nicolas,[G.R. No. 170234, 8 February 2007, 515 SCRA 187, 197.] this Court held
that the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buybust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof
of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. With more reason that a mere
inconsistency thereof does not and will not affect the credibility of the prosecution witness so
long as all the elements of the offense have been established with certainty.
That no test buy was conducted before the arrest is of no moment for there is no rigid or
textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. For the same reason, the absence of
evidence of a prior surveillance does not affect the regularity of a buy-bust operation,
especially when, like in this case, the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the
scene by their informant. The Court will not pretend to establish on a priori basis what
detailed acts police authorities might credibly undertake and carry out in their entrapment
operations. The selection of appropriate and effective means of entrapping drug traffickers is
best left to the discretion of police authorities. [People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 133
(2000).]
47
January 26,
2011
People vs.
QUIAMANLON,

Act No. (RA) 9165
Undeniably, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[People v. Cortez,] What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.
Perusal of the provision of the IRR of RA 9165 (Section 21) readily reveals that the custodial
chain rule is not to be rigorously applied, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
January 19,
2011
People vs.
ERLINDA
CAPUNO y
TISON, G.R. No.
185715, Acquitted
9165
the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad
faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[People v. Ventura, G.R. No.
184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562; citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747,
September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 595.]
The requirements of paragraph 1, Section 21 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 This
procedure, however, was not shown to have been complied with by the members of the buybust team, and nothing on record suggests that they had extended reasonable efforts to comply
with the said statutory requirement in handling the evidence.
It is clear that the apprehending team, upon confiscation of the drug, immediately brought the
appellant and the seized specimen to the police station. No physical inventory and
photograph of the seized items were taken in the presence of the appellant or her
counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and an elective official. We stress
that PO1 Antonios testimony was corroborated by another member of the apprehending team,
PO1 Jiro, who narrated that after arresting the appellant, they brought her and the seized item
to the police station. At no time during PO1 Jiros testimony did he even intimate that they
inventoried or photographed the confiscated item.
A review of jurisprudence, even prior to the passage of R.A. No. 9165, shows that this Court
did not hesitate to strike down convictions for failure to follow the proper procedure for the
custody of confiscated dangerous drugs. Prior to R.A. No. 9165, the Court applied the
procedure required by Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, amending
Board Regulation No. 7, Series of 1974.[See People v. Magat, G.R. No. 179939, September
29, 2008, 567 SCRA 86, 95.] Section 1 of this Regulation requires the apprehending team,
having initial custody and control of the seized drugs, to immediately inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused and/or his representatives, who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The Court remained vigilant in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the
48
seized drugs were observed after the passage of R.A. No. 9165. In People v. Lorenzo,[G.R.
No. 184760, April 23, 2010.] we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to
photograph and inventory the seized items. People v. Garcia[G.R. No. 173480, February 25,
2009, 580 SCRA 259.] likewise resulted in an acquittal because no physical inventory was
ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances
required by R.A. No. 9165. In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[G.R. No. 173804, December 10, 2008,
573 SCRA 497.] we also acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to conduct an
inventory and to photograph the seized item, without justifiable grounds.
The Chain of Custody Requirement
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in
establishing the corpus delicti - the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit
drug. Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of
custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[People v. Sanchez, supra note 29, citing
People v. Kimura, 428 SCRA 51 (2004) and Lopez v. People, 553 SCRA 619 (2008).]
In the present case, the prosecutions evidence failed to establish the chain that would have
shown that the shabu presented in court was the very same specimen seized from the
appellant.
January 19,
2011
People vs.
NELIDA
DEQUINA Y
DIMAPANAN, et.
al., G.R. No.
Violations of Section 4, in
relation to Section 21,
paragraphs (e-l), (f), (m),
and (o) of Republic Act
No. 6425, otherwise
Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties

In sustaining the appellants conviction, the CA also relied on the evidentiary presumption that
official duties have been regularly performed. This presumption, it must be stressed, is not
conclusive. It cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Any
taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption
unavailable.[People v. Pagaduan, supra note 31.] The presumption, in other words, obtains
only when nothing in the records suggests that the law enforcers involved deviated from the
standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. But where the official act in
question is irregular on its face, as in this case, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of
course.[Cario v. People, G.R. No. 178757, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 388, 406.]
In order to exonerate herself from criminal liability, Dequina contends that she transported the
marijuana under the compulsion of an irresistible fear. Jundoc and Jingabo, on the other hand,
claim that they went along to accommodate Dequina, a trusted childhood friend.
We are unconvinced.
49
177570, Convicted
January 17,
2011
People vs. CARLO

MAGNO AURE y
ARNALDO and
MELCHOR
AUSTRIACO y
AGUILA, G.R.
No. 185163,
convicted
known as the Dangerous

Drugs Act of 1972, as
amended by Republic Act
No. 7659
violating Sections 5, 11,

9165
A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the
impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability
because he does not act with freedom. Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. An act done
by me against my will is not my act. The force contemplated must be so formidable as to
reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The
duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such
nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be
done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as
to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.[19] Here,
Dequinas version of events that culminated with her and Jundoc and Jingabos arrests on
September 29, 1999 is implausible. Equally far-fetched is Jundoc and Jingabos assertion of
blind trust in Dequina and total ignorance of the transportation of marijuana.
As shown in Bilasons testimony, a buy-bust operation took place. Being the poseur-buyer, he
positively identified accused-appellants as the sellers of a sachet containing a white crystalline
substance for a sum of PhP 6,000. The sachet was confiscated and marked with the initials
CAA and was subsequently taken to the crime laboratory for examination, where a chemical
analysis on its contents confirmed that the substance is indeed Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu. Moreover, the testimonies of the other members of the buy-bust
team, PO3 Lagasca and MADAC operative Flores, substantially corroborated Bilasons
testimony.
As regards the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of RA
9165 against accused-appellant Aure, We also find that the elements of the offense have been
established by the evidence of the prosecution.
January 12,
2011
People vs. LUIS

PAJARIN y DELA
CRUZ and
violation of Section 5 in
relation to Sections 26 and
11 (3) in relation to
In the instant case, a brown bag was found inside the car of accused-appellant Aure. It yielded
a plastic sachet of shabu weighing 86.23 grams wrapped in red wrapping paper, small plastic
sachets, and an improvised plastic tooter. Considering that during the sale to Bilason, it was
from the same bag that accused-appellant Austriaco took the sachet of shabu, per order of
accused-appellant Aure, the owner-possessor of said bag and its contents is no other than
accused-appellant Aure, who has not shown any proof that he was duly authorized by law to
possess them or any evidence to rebut his animus possidendi of the shabu found in his car
during the buy-bust operation.
The Court has held in numerous cases that the failure of the police to comply with the
procedure laid down in R.A. 9165 would not render void the seizure of the prohibited
substance for as long as the apprehending officers give justifiable reason for their imperfect
50
EFREN
PALLAYA y
TUVIERA, G.R.
No. 190640,
Acquiteed
Section 13, respectively, of

(R.A.) 9165
conduct[People v. Habana, G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010.] and show that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated items had not been compromised.[People v. Daria, Jr.,
G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 688, 700, citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No.
181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 595.]
Here, the prosecution failed to show that the substances allegedly seized from the accused
were the same substances presented in court to prove their guilt. Usually, the seized article
changes hands from the police officer who takes it from the accused, to the supervising officer
at their station, to the messenger who brings them to the police crime laboratory, and then to
the court where it is adduced as evidence. Since custody and possession change over time, it
has been held indispensable that the officer who seized the article places it in a plastic
container unless it is already in one, seals it if yet unsealed, and puts his marking on the
cover. In this way there is assurance, upon inspection, that the substance reaches the
laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused.[People v. Habana]
Further, as a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should ordinarily
testify that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; that he resealed
it after examination of the content; and that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure
that it could not be tampered pending trial. In case the parties stipulate to dispense with the
attendance of the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that
he took the precautionary steps mentioned. Here, the record fails to show this.
January 10,
2011
People vs. JAY

LORENA y
LABAG, G.R. No.
184954, Acquitted
9165
It is a serious concern that quite often the failure of the police to observe the rules governing
buy-bust operations results in acquittals. Drug enforcement agencies should continually train
their officers and agents to observe these rules and transfer out those who would not. The
prosecutors conducting preliminary investigation should not file in court drugs cases where
the sworn statements of the police officers, the report of the chemical analyst, and the object
evidence do not show compliance with the same. And trial courts should order the case
dismissed and the accused released from detention if on examination the supporting
documents are wanting in this respect. They should not waste their precious time to useless
exercise where the police and the prosecution fail to observe the rule of law especially in so
serious offenses.
Further, considering the illegal drugs unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily
identifiable and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or
otherwise, there is a need to comply strictly with procedure in its seizure and custody. [People
v. Kamad, G.R. No.174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 304-305.] Section 21,
51
paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides such procedure:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
Evident from the records of this case, however, is the fact that the members of the buy-bust
team did not comply with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Nothing in
the testimony of Solero, Commander of Task Force Ubash, would show that the procedure
was complied with. He even admitted that he has not seen the inventory of the confiscated
drugs allegedly prepared by the police officers and that he only read a little of R.A. No. 9165.
Nonetheless, People v. Pringas[G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828.] teaches
that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily
fatal. Its non-compliance will not automatically render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007,
531 SCRA 828.] We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21
may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied
conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of
confiscated evidence.[People v. Pagaduan, supra note 13 at 10-11.]
Even so, for the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should explain the
reasons behind the procedural lapses and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
evidence seized had been preserved.[People v. Almorfe, G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010,
617 SCRA 52, 60, citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA
194, 212.] It must be shown that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same specimen
seized from the accused. This function is performed by the chain of custody requirement to
erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs by establishing its movement from the
accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist and finally to the court.[People v. Almorfe, id. at
60-61, citing Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619.]
52
January 10,
2011
People vs.
NG YIK BUN,
KWOK WAI
CHENG, CHANG
CHAUN SHI,
CHUA SHILOU
HWAN, KAN
SHUN MIN, and
RAYMOND S.
TAN, G.R. No.
180452
violating Section 16,

No. (RA) 6425
In this case, there was no compliance with the inventory and photographing of the seized
dangerous drug and marked money immediately after the buy-bust operation. We have held
that such non-compliance does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the
dangerous drugs. There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom,
and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officer/s.[People v. Almorfe, supra note 19 at 59, citing Sec. 21(a), Art. II
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165.] While a perfect chain of
custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and
essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering,
contamination and even substitution and exchange. Hence, every link must be accounted for.
[Id. at 61-62, citing Malillin v. People, supra note 20 at 633.]
Evidently, the arresting police officers had probable cause to suspect that accused-appellants
were loading and transporting contraband, more so when Hwan, upon being accosted, readily
mentioned that they were loading shabu and pointed to Tan as their leader. Thus, the arrest of
accused-appellantswho were caught in flagrante delicto of possessing, and in the act of
loading into a white L-300 van, shabu, a prohibited drug under RA 6425, as amendedis
valid.
Moreover, present in the instant case are all the elements of illegal possession of drugs: (1)
the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses
the said drug.[People v. Sy, G.R. No. 147348, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 594, 604-605;
citing Manalili v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113447, October 9, 1997, 280 SCRA 400, 418.]
Accused-appellants were positively identified in court as the individuals caught loading and
possessing illegal drugs. They were found to be in possession of prohibited drugs without
proof that they were duly authorized by law to possess them. Having been caught in flagrante
delicto, there is, therefore, a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on the part of accusedappellants.[People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010.] There is, thus, no
merit to the argument of the defense that a warrant was needed to arrest accused-appellants.
Accused-appellants were not able to show that there was any truth to their allegation of a
frame-up in rebutting the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. They relied on mere
denials, in contrast with the testimony of Capt. Ibon, who testified that he and his team saw
accused-appellants loading plastic bags with a white crystalline substance into an L-300 van at
the Villa Vicenta Resort. Accused-appellants, except for Tan, claimed that they were ordered
by the police officers to act like they were loading bags onto the van. Accused-appellant Tan
told a different tale and claims he was arrested inside a restaurant. But as the trial court found,
53
the persons who could have corroborated their version of events were not presented in court.
The only witness presented by Tan, a tricycle driver whose testimony corroborated Tans
alone, was not found by the trial court to be credible.
As no ill motive can be imputed to the prosecutions witnesses, we uphold the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties and affirm the trial courts finding that the
police officers testimonies are deserving of full faith and credit. Appellate courts generally
will not disturb the trial courts assessment of a witness credibility unless certain material
facts and circumstances have been overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded.[People v. Gregorio,
Jr., G.R. No. 174474, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 216, 227; citing People v. Abao, G.R. No.
142728, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 431.] We find no reason to deviate from this rule in the
instant case.
54

Date Case Violation Doctrine

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Date Case Violation Doctrine

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DATE

June 20, 2012

June 13, 2012

People vs. Climaco,

violation of Sections 5 and

Constitutional Presumption of Innocence; Weight of Evidence

G.R. No. 199403 ACQUITTED

11 of Republic Act No.

June 13, 2012

People vs. Ancheta,

of utmost importance in determining the admissibility of the evidence presented in court,

Violation of Sections 5 and

violations of Section 5 and

April 11, 2012

violating Sections 5 and

April 11, 2012

People vs. Biyala,

April 11, 2012

People vs. Figueroa,

violation of Section 26,

selling the prohibited drug

People vs. Paler,

People vs. Clarite,

members of buy-bust teams in drug-related cases:

the objective test in evaluating buy-bust operations:

contamination of evidence.11 It is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody.

In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited

The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the

People vs. Bara,

illegal sale of shabu under

HO WAI PANG vs.

Section 15, Article III,

People vs. Ulat,

People vs. Unisa,

Sections 5 and 11, Article

As in People v. Partoza, this case suffers from the failure

GR No. 18572, CONVICTED

Section 5 and Section 11,

Violation of Section 11,

People vs. Delos

August 31, 2011

Aurelio vs. People,

violation of Sections 5 and 11,

Sy vs. People, G.R.

Section 11, Article II of

Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 308.]

People vs. Fermin,

July 20, 2011

People vs. ALLEN

violation of Sections 5 and

July 13, 2011

People vs. JAIME

violation of Section 5 (1),

People vs. Gaspar,

violation of (1) Section 5,

People vs. Laylo,

violation of Section 26(b),

G.R. No. 192235

June 15, 2011

People vs. Cruz,

Article II (Attempted Sale

violation of Sections 5 and

June 11, 2011