PEOPLE VS AMARO y CATUBAY

June 1, 2016 GR No. 207517

FACTS: A team composed of the members of the Intelligence

Operatives of the PNP Dumaguete Station, PDEA, and National
Bureau of Investigation, implemented a buy-bust operation
against Amaro in his residence located in Looc, Dumaguete City.
The plan was brought about by reports received by the
Intelligence Operatives of the station that Amaro was engaged in
the illegal trade of selling shabu. The team was also armed with a
search warrant, which was the result of surveillance and test buy
conducted prior to the buy-bust operation. P03 Abella was
designated as the poseur-buyer. SP02 Ferrer handed him two (2)
one hundred peso (Pl 00.00) bills, which he marked with "RA,"
referring to the initials of Amaro; As planned, while the rest of the
buy-bust team concealed themselves and served as back-up, P03
Abella approached Amaro at the back portion of his house and
negotiated for the purchase of P200.00 worth of shabu. When the
sale was already consummated, the police officer immediately
arrested the accused and subjected him to search as an incident
to a lawful arrest. In this instance, the apprehending officers
recovered the marked money. The chain of custody was observed
properly as well as the constitutional rights of the accused.
Hence, a violation of RA9165 Sec. 5 was charged against the
accused. The RTC and CA finds the accused guilty as charged.
ISSUE: is the accused guilty as charged?
HELD:
YES. For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the following
elements must be satisfied: ( 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 the payment therefor. In the crime

of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to

the poseur buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked
money consummate the illegal transaction. What matters is the
proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti,
as evidence. In this case, all the elements are present.
In addition, the links that must be established in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation are as follows: (1) the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer
of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and ( 4) the turnover and submission of the seized
and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.
In the case at bar, Amaro did not present any evidence to show
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu presented at
the trial had been compromised at some point. On the contrary,
the body of evidence adduced by the prosecution supports the
conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
evidence were preserved and safeguarded through an unbroken
chain of custody.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The decisions of the RTC
and CA are hereby AFFIRMED with cost against the accusedappellant.

People of Philippines Vs. Michael Kurt John Bulawan y

Andales
G.R. No. 204441. June 8, 2016

FACTS:
An alleged buy-bust operation was conducted by the PDEA
operatives against the herein accused which resulted to the arrest
of the latter. Thereafter, a crime for violation of sec. 5 of RA 9165
was charged against the accused. After weighing the evidence,
the RTC convicted accused-appellant of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The
RTC found that although the identity of the alleged buyer, seller,
and object were established, two elements of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs were still missing -the consideration and the
payment. As testified to by IOI de la Cerna himself, he did not
bring any buy-bust money and that there was no payment of the
alleged marijuana he received from accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant went before the Court of Appeals. After a
review of the records, the appellate court found accusedappellant guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Citing People v. Concepcion, 10 the
Court of Appeals held that Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
covers not only the sale of dangerous drugs but also the mere act
of delivery after the offer-to-buy by the entrapping officer has
been accepted by the seller.
ISSUE: is the accused guilty as charged?
HELD:
NO. For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the following elements
must be satisfied: ( 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 the payment therefor. In the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money
consummate the illegal transaction. What matters is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as
evidence.

In the case at bar, it is readily apparent that no sale was

consummated as the consideration, much less its receipt by
accused-appellant, were not established. There is more reason to
acquit accused-appellant of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs as the prosecution was not able to prove that there was
even a consideration for the supposed transaction.
In addition, the links that must be established in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation are as follows: (1) the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer
of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and ( 4) the turnover and submission of the seized
and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.
However, in the case at bar, the chain of custody of the seized
alleged marijuana was not sufficiently established, thereby
casting doubt on the identity and integrity of the supposed
evidence. As the seized substance was not sealed, the
prosecution should have presented all the officers who handled
said evidence from the time it left the person of the accused to
the time it was presented in open court. The prosecution did not.
Moreover, as the prosecution failed to establish every link in the
chain of custody of the subject dangerous drugs, thus
compromising its identity and integrity, accused-appellant cannot
be held liable for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and ACQUITS the
accused-appellant.