You are on page 1of 6

Article 200 of the RPC GRAVE SCANDAL (Article 441 of the OPC)

26 US v. Samaniego


That on or about 25th day of November, 1907, in the city of Manila, Philippine Islands, the
said Manuel Samaniego did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously lie with and
have the sexual intercourse with the said accused, Juana Benedicto de Perez, who was
then and there, as the said accused, a married woman
The defendants were arrested under the said information and were confined in Bilibid, after
the arrest of the said defendants, Juana Benedicto de Perez, at the instance of the
prosecuting attorney, was examined by three physicians for the purpose of determining her
mental condition. doctors made their report to the Court of First Instance, expressing the
opinion that the said Juana Benedicto de Perez was mentally deranged.
On the 7th day of January, 1908, the defendants were tried on the charge of adultery. Both
were then acquitted because evidence was insufficient to warrant the conviction of either of
the defendants
In the judgment acquitting the defendants the court included permission to the prosecuting
attorney to file against either or both of the said defendants a new information charging
them with the crime defined in article 441 of the Penal Code.
New information: That on and for many weeks prior to the 27th day of November, 1907, in
the city of Manila, Philippine Islands. the said Juana Juana Benedicto De Perez was a
married woman, and that the said Manuel Samaniego knew that she was married and
united in the bonds of matrimony with and was the legitimate consort of Jose Perez
Siguenza; that during the period of time above expressed the said Manuel Samaniego and
Juana Benedicto de Perez, willfully, illegally, and criminally and scandalously, without
having any matrimonial tie between them, habitually appeared together in public places
and frequented together places of recreation, suspicious places, vacant houses, and
houses of bad repute, in the daytime as well as in the nighttime; and lewdly and
indecently went to the bed together in the house of the husband of the said Juana
Benedicto de Perez during the late hours of the night, dressed only in their night
clothes, and in decorously, indecently, and immodestly embraced each other and
caressed each other in the presence of the family, children, and servants of the said
husband of Juana Benedicto de Perez; all with public scandal and with scandal to the
community, and with shame and humiliation to the husband and family of the said Juana
The trial court rendered a decision in which he found the defendants guilty of the crime
charged, condemning the defendant Samaniego to the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum degree and the ordering the defendant Juana Benedicto de Perez confined in an
asylum for the insane until the further order of the court
On the same day the defendants excepted to said decision and made a motion for a new
The court then re-opened the case for purpose only of receiving evidence as to the
publicity of the acts charged in the complaint. On the 18th day of April the courts
rendered a decision affirming the judgment rendered by him on the 5th day of February in the
same case. In the same decision he denied defendant's motion for a new trial.
In attempting to prove the adultery alleged in the information, the prosecution presented
various witnesses. On the night of Nov 6 1907, Juana and her daughters and son attended a
dance party (Samaniego was also there) then went home to their house. While preparing
for bed..
1. Conchita - discovered that there was a stranger in the lower part of the house and by her
cries brought the household to the spot. She declares in her testimony that when she first
saw the stranger he was near the cochero's bed and while she was watching the movements
of the stranger, her mother went below and appeared to be talking with him; that not for a
moment did she lose sight of her mother during all the occurrence.
2. Cochero - testified that the stranger was Samaniego and that he came first to the cochero's
bed and talked with him a while, but afterwards the cochero went to asleep, and later, on
hearing the cries of Conchita, he saw Samaniego trying to conceal himself in the kitchen and
also observed that the caused, Juana Benedicto de Perez, was going up and down the
stairs; testified that he frequently had as passengers in the carromata the two defendants;
that on one occasion he had waited for them while they went to a house in Calle Cervantes,
and on another occasion they had gone into a house on Calle Malacaang, the witness
supposing that the house was unoccupied because the accused, Juana, had told him that
she was looking for a house to rent; that the witness at no time observed anything improper
in the conduct or deportment of the two defendants. There is no proof whatever that these
were places of bad repute or that any of them were unoccupied.
3. Caridad - testified that, when Conchita informed the family that a stranger was in the lower
part of the house, she awoke her brother Rafael, who accompanied her below, where they
found the defendant Samaniego, dressed only in his drawers; that she gave him a blow in
the face and ordered him immediately to quit the house; that he asked her pardon and
requested permission to put on his clothes; that permission to do so was refused and she
and her brother ejected him from the house by force and later the cochero handed him his
clothes over the wall.

Issue: WON Samaniego and Juana are guilty of Article 441 (grave scandal)?

Held: NO

The acts complained of lack many of the elements essential to bring them within the
purview of the article of the Penal Code invoked by the prosecution. Every act that was in
anywise public fails entirely of those qualities which offend modesty and good morals by
"grievous scandal or enormity." The occurrence at the residence on the night of the
6th of November did not have that publicity which is required by the article of the
Penal Code referred to.
The reason for reopening the case was to present evidence particularly that of the
"publicity or non-publicity of the acts charged in the complaint." (pero wala nila na
prove kasi ang binigay lang nila testimony in relation to the adultery charged dun sa first
case tska raw paulit ulit na lang daw ang sinasabi gusto ng supreme court bago na naman
daw kasi sawa na sila syet fuckboy ang supreme court huhu)
Furthermore, the testimony given on the reopening by this witness and the testimony of the
witness Amadeo Pacheco can have no bearing or weight in the decision of this case
because such testimony relates to the acts and relations between the defendants which are
not "charged in the complaint" and concerning which no evidence whatever had been offered
on the trial.
In the judgment of this court the evidence fails to show the defendants guilty of the crime
The judgments of conviction of the trial court is, therefore, reversed, the defendants
acquitted and their discharge from custody ordered.

Chain of custody, RA 9165

33 People v. Manalao
In two separate Informations filed before Branch 7, RTC of Lanao del Norte, Manalao was
charged with violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
That on or about the 15th day of June 2004, Purok 6, Barangay Poblacion, Tubod, Lanao
del Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without being authorized by law:
1. (Criminal Case No. 056-07-2004) did, then and there willfully and feloniously sell and
deliver one (1) Deck of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or SHABU weighing more or less
0.1 gram to a Police Poseur/Buyer in the amount of P200.00, said accused knowing the
same to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or SHABU, a dangerous [drug].
2. (Criminal Case No. 057-07-2004) did, then and there willfully and feloniously have in his
possession and control Three (3) Decks of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or SHABU
weighing more or less 0.4 [grams], said accused knowing the same to be
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or SHABU, a dangerous [drug].

Manalao pleaded not guilty to both charges upon his arraignment; parties agreed on a joint
trial of cases

Prosecution evidence
PO1 Solarta said that their office had received reports of Manalao's drug pushing and using
activities . Thus, upon instructions of Police Inspector Renato Salazar, they prepared to conduct an
entrapment or buy-bust operation against Manalao. PO1 Solarta narrated that on June 15, 2004,
the buy-bust operation team composed of P/Insp. Salazar, SPO3 Expedito Daulong, and himself,
prepared two P100.00 bills as drug money by having them signed by
P/Insp. Salazar and then photocopying them. At around seven in the evening, the team,
together with a civilian agent who was to act as the poseur-buyer, proceeded to the carenderia of
Josephine Tamarong, located along the national highway.

At the carenderia, the team pretended to be customers and had some coffee while waiting for
Manalao, who arrived at around 8:00 p.m. PO1 Solarta, who claimed to have been only around
three to four meters away from the scene. Manalao arrived, following a brief conversation, the
civilian agent handed Manalao the buy-bust money and in turn, Manalao "got something from his
pocket, opened it, and gave something" to the civilian agent. After, the civilian agent approached
the buy-bust team, who without delay arrested Manalao.

During the arrest, the buy-bust team introduced themselves to Manalao and bodily searched
him, from which three decks of shabu and money, including the buy-bust money of two pieces
of P100.00 bills, were recovered. Manalao, together with the items seized from him, were brought
to the police station. Thereafter, P/Insp. Salazar marked the seized items in front of the other
apprehending officers and Manalao.
PO1 Solarta, aside from narrating his account of the entrapment operation, also identified the
certificate of inventory of the items seized from Manalao, which he enumerated to be one deck of
shabu, three decks of shabu, two P100.00 bills, and one small, black and white, lady's purse. He
likewise identified the shabu presented in court to be the same one recovered from Manalao and
examined by Forensic Chemist Mag-abo.

Manalao testified that it was on June 9, 2004 and not June 15, 2004 that he was arrested. He
claimed that in the evening of June 9, 2004, he went to take his supper at a restaurant at Purok 6,
Tubod, Lanao del Norte. Manalao said that his nephew was asking for money, thus he requested
Paquito to have his P500.00 bill changed into smaller bills. Paquito did so, but in return, he asked
Manalao to hand a wrapped item to a certain Mr. Posadas, who at that time was shouting from a
distance. Manalao obliged Paquito, who by then had already left with his companions towards
Poblacion. Five minutes later, Manalao saw P/Insp. Salazar's vehicle approaching, who after
passing by him, alighted from the vehicle together with PO1 Solarta. Thereafter, Manalao said
that he was cuffed, brought to the police station, and then frisked. Manalao then admitted that
more than P600.00 was taken from him, including the P500.00 Paquito had changed into P100.00

RTC: guilty; CA: affirmed RTC; Hence, the petition

Manalaos contention:
(1) prosecution failed to establish that the sale of the dangerous drug ever took place since
none of the prosecution witnesses saw the alleged transaction between him and the civilian
(2) claims that the buy-bust team did not follow the proper procedure in the custody and control
of seized drugs as they failed to mark, make an inventory, and photograph the confiscated
drugs immediately and at the place of the incident.

1. WON the sale of drugs was not established
2. WON the chain of custody of evidence of the drugs was not established



Elements necessary to successfully prosecute an illegal sale of drugs case
(1) [T]he identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
(2) [T]he delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor Simply put, the prosecution
must establish that the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs actually took place
together with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drugs
seized in evidence.

Manalao was positively identified by PO1 Solarta, who knew him even before the operation, as
the one who sold the seized shabu subject of this case to the poseur-buyer. Manalao was caught in
flagrante delicto in the entrapment operation conducted by the PNP of Tubod, Lanao del Norte.
Moreover, the corpus delicti of the crime was also established with certainty and
conclusiveness. Manalao handed to the poseur-buyer one deck of shabu upon his receipt of
the P200.00 buy-bust money

Manalao's insistence that the non-presentation of the civilian agent, who posed as the buyer,
weakens the prosecution's case is without merit. In People v.
Berdadero: The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness
to the illicit transaction.

Also, Manalao himself testified that when the police officers recovered some money from him,
P/Insp. Salazar, immediately, without leaving his sight, took out the photocopy of the buy-bust money
and told him to compare it to the two P100.00 bills found on him. Manalao admitted, both in his
direct and cross-examination, that the serial numbers of the bills obtained from him matched
the serial numbers of the bills in the photocopy


Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 outlines the procedure on the chain
of custody of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs. A perusal of the law reveals that
failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 will not render an arrest illegal or
the items seized from the accused inadmissible in evidence. What is crucial is that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination
of the guilt or innocence of the accused

In People v. Llanita and Buar, this Court elucidated on the concept of "chain of
custody" :
"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 of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition.

In the case of People v. Kamad, the Court had the opportunity to enumerate the different links that
the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation,
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; SCEHaD
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.

In the case at bar, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to establish that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs had been maintained. P/Insp. Salazar,
who was one of the apprehending officers, marked the seized items in front of Manalao and the
other apprehending officers. P/Insp. Salazar, who was also the investigating officer, thereafter
signed a request for the laboratory examination of the seized drugs, which was received by
Forensic Chemist Mag-abo, together with the items enumerated therein. She then testified in
open court on how her examination confirmed that the seized items, which she submitted in
court, tested positive for shabu.

Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs

When prosecuting an illegal possession of dangerous drugs case, the following elements must be
(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 drug.

The prosecution was able to satisfy all the foregoing elements during the joint trial of the cases. The
three decks of shabu subject of the case for illegal possession of drugs were validly obtained
upon searching Manalao after he was arrested in flagrante delicto for the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs
Mere possession of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under Republic
Act No. 9165. Since Manalao failed to adduce any evidence showing that he had legal authority to
possess the seized drugs, then he was correctly charged with its illegal possession.