Mindanao State University

College of Law
Iligan Extension

Case Digests on
Special Penal Laws

Submitted to:
Judge Arthur Abundiente

Submitted by:
Honey Crisril M. Calimot
II - Teehankee
Case #1 People vs. Nuarin
GR No. 188698

Facts:
On February 2, 2003, at about 12:30 in the afternoon, accused-appellant was at
home with her son John Bernel and friends Jan Ticson and Rebecca Agana. Then
suddenly there was a knock on the door. At the door were PO3 Cleto Montenegro, PO1
Filnar Mutia and two others. They were looking for a certain Bogart. When accused-
appellant said that she did not know where Bogart was, the police officers entered the
house and searched the premises for about an hour. When the search did not produce
anything incriminatory, the police brought accused-appellant and the other occupants of
the house to Camp Karingal In Quezon City. There, the police asked ₱40,000.00 in
exchange of accused-appellant’s release. When the money was not produced, accused-
appellant was charged by the police officers.
The Regional Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the illegal sale of 0.03 gram
of shabu penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On appeal, the Court of
Appeals reiterated and affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto, it held that the prosecution
successfully proved all the elements of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165. It further ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated
shabu had been duly preserved.
In her answer, the appellant contends that the trial court was gravely mistaken in
convicting her of the crime charged despite the prosecution’s failure to establish that a
buy-bust operation took place. She also maintained that the chain of custody over the
seized shabu had been broken.

Issue:
Whether or not appellant Sonia Nuarin is guilty of illegal sale pursuant to Section
5 of R.A. No. 9165. despite the prosecution’s failure to conduct a buy bust operation and
maintain the chain of custody of the illegal drug.

Ruling:
No, Nuarin is not guilty. After due consideration, the Supreme Court resolved to acquit
the appellant for the prosecution’s failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It
contends that a successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the
perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime: the identities
of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and the existence of the
corpus delicti. In securing or sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the intrinsic
worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti,
must be shown to have been preserved. Thus, to remove any doubt on the identity and
integrity of the seized drug, evidence must dulyshow that the illegal drug presented in
court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant.

Case #2 People vs. Mirondo

GR No. 210841

Facts:
On 21 May 2006 at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, ENRICO MIRONDO was
at their house in San Pedro, Laguna, when eight armed men destroyed their gate and
forcibly entered their residence and immediately handcuffed him. He asked them the
reason why he was being handcuffed but he was not given any answer. He was not shown
any warrant of arrest or search warrant before the group searched his residence. The
group, however, found nothing. Afterwards, he was brought outside and boarded their
vehicle. While inside the vehicle, the armed men forced him was to admit that he was
selling shabu but he refused. He was then imprisoned at around 11:00 o'clock in the
evening.
The arresting team brought appellant to the police station and turned him over to
the Investigator on duty for processing. They then prepared their Pre-Operational Plan,
the Certificate of Inventory as well as the official request for chemical and laboratory
examination of the suspected shabu they apprehended from the appellant. Significantly,
the examination conducted disclosed that the white crystalline substance contained in the
plastic sachet recovered from the appellant tested positive for the presence of shabu.
The RTC found Mirondo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation
of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. Accordingly, Mirando was sentenced to life imprisonment.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The appellate court found that all
the elements of the offense of illegal sale of shabu were sufficiently established by the
prosecution. The CA stated that the alleged non-compliance with the requirements of
Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 would not result in the acquittal of Mirondo because the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu were duly preserved.
Mirondo asserts that the charge of illegal drug deal is a complete fabrication and
frame-up because there was no substantial evidence was presented by the prosecution
prove to that a legitimate buy-bust operation was conducted against him.
Issue:
Whether or not appellant Mirondo is guilty of illegal sale pursuant to Section 5 of
R.A. No. 9165. despite the prosecution’s failure to conduct a buy bust operation.

Ruling:
Yes, Mirondo is guilty. It is a well-established doctrine that the trial court's findings
of fact are, as a rule, entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, especially
when affirmed by the CA. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply
where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the outcome of
the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.
For a successful prosecution of an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
following essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place;
(2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer
and seller were identified. Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or
sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or
regulated drug as evidence.
In the case at bench, the Court finds that the second element is wanting. It appears
that the subject 0.03 gram of shabu allegedly confiscated from Mirondo was never
presented in evidence during the trial for identification by the prosecution witnesses.
There was nothing in the records that would show that the shabu, subject of Criminal
Case No. 5819-SPL, was ever presented by the prosecution before the trial court and
was not one of those marked as an exhibit during the pre-trial or even in the course of the
trial proper. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the indispensable element of
corpus delicti of the case.

Case #3 People vs. Pancho

GR No. 206910
Facts:
On September 14, 2005 members of the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence
Bureau of Cebu City conducted a search in the house of accused-appellant and her
husband Samuel Pancho located in Sitio Plastikan, Barangay Duljo-Fatima, Cebu City.
The raiding team was accompanied by three barangay tanods. The search yielded three
big plastic packets of suspected shabu weighing a total of 14.49 grams, which were
recovered under a jewelry box placed on top of a cabinet divider. PO1 Veloso handed the
packets of shabu to PO2 Ilagan who recorded them in the confiscation receipt and made
markings on the plastic packets. The raiding team brought accused-appellant to the police
station and handed over the seized items to the Crime Laboratory for testing. The Crime
Laboratory later issued Chemistry Report confirming that the three heat-sealed
transparent plastic bags, weighing a total of 14.49 grams, were tested positive for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
On 5 October 2009, the RTC rendered judgment finding accusedappellant guilty of illegal
possession of shabu and sentencing her to life imprisonment and to pay a ₱1,000,000.00
fine. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the RTC, with modification
in the fine imposed which was reduced to ₱500,000.00.
Accused-appellant avers that the requisites of an unbroken chain of custody under
Section 21, of R.A. No. 9165 were not complied with.
The OSG denied its petition and rendered that the prosecution was able to establish the
chain of custody of the corpus delicti; and despite the non-compliance with Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution has shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items had been duly preserved.

Issue:
Whether or not the requisites of an unbroken chain of custody pursuant to Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165 were duly complied with

Ruling:
Yes. In the instant case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was not
broken. The prosecution established that PO1 Veloso seized three packets of shabu from
the bedroom of accused-appellant. He then handed them over to PO2 Ilagan, who
subsequently made the markings on the items and prepared a confiscation receipt of the
same while in appellant’s house. PO2 Ilagan brought the confiscated shabu to the police
station where he prepared a letter-request addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory. It
was PO2 Ilagan, accompanied by PO1 Veloso, who went to the PNP Crime Laboratory
to bring the specimen and the letter-request. PO2 Roma received the shabu and
forwarded the same to the forensic chemist. The chain of custody was testified to by the
police authorities. Clearly, the recovery and the handling of the seized illegal drugs were
satisfactorily- established in this case. The failure of the members of the raiding team to
deliver the seized · items to the judge who issued the warrant becomes immaterial
because records show that the chain of custody is intact.
As held in the case of People vs. Salvador, “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."
Case # 4 People vs. Akmad
GR No. 195194

Facts:
On 25 September 2003, SPO1 Hashim Maung of the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agengy (PDEA), Bulacan Provincial Office received a tip from a civilian informant
regarding the illegal drug activities of Kamad and Bainhor in Meycauayan, Bulacan. The
two were allegedly capable of disposing large volumes of shabu through consignment
basis. SPO1 Maung instructed the civilian informant to set up a drug deal with the
suspects. A team composed of Police Officer 3 Rolando Navarette (PO3 Navarette), as
poseur-buyer, and SPO1 Maung and PO1 Co, as backup, was immediately formed to
conduct a buy-bust operation.
During the buy bust operation PO3 Navarette acted as the poseur buyer. The
informant introduced PO3 Navarette to Kamad and Bainhor. After receiving the alleged
shabu from Kamad and Bainhor, PO3 Navarette executed the pre-arranged signal. SPO1
Maung and PO1 Co immediately rushed in and introduced themselves as PDEA
operatives. The accused were informed of their rights and brought to the police station
for disposition and documentation.
PO3 Navarette testified that he marked the plastic sachet with his initial "RCN." He
likewise testified that he prepared the request for the laboratory examination that was
brought by SPO1 Maung to the crime laboratory together with the specimen, which later
tested positive for shabu.
On May 22, 2008, Kamad and Bainhor were charged before RTC, Branch 21,
Malolos, Bulacan for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On appeal, the CA
found no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC and upheld its ruling. The appellate
court agreed with the RTC that the testimony of the lone prosecution witness was
sufficient to establish the culpability of accused-appellants. It also held that the
apprehending officers complied with the proper procedure in the custody and disposition
of the seized drug and that the identity of the corpus delicti was properly preserved and
established by the prosecution.

Issue:
Whether or not the lower courts erred in rendering Kamad and Bainhor guilty
beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
No. The lower courts did not err in its decision in finding both Kamad and Bainhor
guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused-appellants insisted that no sale transaction was consummated
between them and PO3 Navarette because one of the essential elements of a sale, i.e.
the price certain in money or its equivalent is absent. The court finds its contention
erroneous. In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the absence
of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution if the sale
of dangerous drug is adequately proven, and the drug subject of the transaction is
presented before the court. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.
Accused-appellants also submit that the lower courts failed to consider the
procedural flaws committed by the arresting officers in the seizure and custody of drugs
as embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, R.A. No. 9165. This argument is also
erroneous. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers
failed to strictly comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such
procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence.
What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.

Case #5 People vs Carrera

G.R No. 215731

Facts:
On July 13, 2009, a confidential informant of IO2 Sandaan arrived at the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency – Metro Manila Regional Office (PDEA-MMRO) and reported
illegal drug activities of a certain Latif in Caloocan City. The informant alleged that Latif
was engaged in selling shabu and capable of selling large amounts of bulto.
After meeting for the conduct of a buy-bust operation, they proceeded to the area.
The team with the informant went to Brgy. Malaria, Caloocan City on-board a red L-300
van. Upon arriving at around 9:30 a.m., IO1 Samson and the informant alighted from the
van and proceeded to the designated area.The informant subsequently called a certain
Latif. A short male person, subsequently identified as appellant, arrived shortly after the
call. The informant introduced IO1 Samson as the buyer and asked whether he had the
item with him. Appellant replied in the affirmative and asked IO1 Samson if he brought
the money. IO1 Samson replied in the affirmative and partly opened the plastic bag
containing the money showing the top portion to appellant. He then informed appellant
that he will only hand the money when he received the item.
Appellant pulled out from his pocket a transparent plastic wrapped with electrical
tape and handed it to IO1 Samson. Upon receipt of the plastic packet with the crystalline
substance, IO1 Samson grabbed appellant, introduced himself as PDEA agent, and
removed his cap to notify the team. The team approached the target area and IO1 Santos
assisted IO1 Samson in arresting appellant by handcuffing him and reading to him his
constitutional rights. When the team arrived at the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan, they
opened the plastic bag and found seven sachets of shabu. An inventory was conducted
in the presence of a Barangay Kagawad. The seized item was subsequently delivered to
PDEA-MMRO. IO1 Samson personally brought the specimen and the request to the
PDEA Crime Laboratory Service on the same day. Upon receipt of the request, Maria
Criser Abad, the Crime Laboratory Chemist on duty, personally performed the
examination on the seven sachets containing white crystalline substance submitted by
IO1 Samson. Appellant’s urine sample was likewise submitted.
The evidence was found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. On the
other hand, appellant’s urine sample was found negative for the presence of shabu and
marijuana.
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section
5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On appeal, the CA found appellant guilty of illegal
possession of prohibited drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
sale and illegal possession of illegal drugs.
(2) Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal
possession of illegal drugs.

Rulings:
(1) Yes, he is guilty of illegal sale. As held in the case of People v. Maongco, it was
stated that a person may be convicted of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs if it is
proven that (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another,
personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by
law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery with or without
consideration. In this case, we convicted a person charged with illegal sale of
shabu of illegal delivery of shabu for non-payment by the poseur-buyer. In the
present case, the prosecution established that appellant based on a prior
arrangement knowingly passed the shabu to IO 1 Samson. Being a tricycle driver,
 appellant was without authority to hold and deliver the drug. Thus, appellant is
guilty of illegal sale of shabu.
(2) No. While the court found that appellant is liable for illegal sale under R.A. No.
9165, it disagrees with its conclusion that appellant is guilty of illegal possession
of a prohibited drug.

Case #6 People vs. Bocadi

G.R No. 193388

Facts:
On March 2005, the NBI instituted a buy bust operation after receiving information
from a confidential asset regarding the open sale of shabu in Barangay Looc. After the
transaction of sale between the poseur buyer SI Fineza and Bocadi, they immediately. SI
Fineza informed the accused of the nature of their arrest and of their constitutional rights.
He then pre-marked the sachet of suspected shabu. He physically searched Bocadi and
discovered from him another sachet of suspected shabu. This was also pre-marked by
him. He also recovered the marked money from Baticolon after a search was made on
the latter's person.
Subsequently, the suspects, as well as the seized and recovered items, were
brought to the NBI Office where these were photographed and inventoried. The inventory
was prepared, signed and witnessed by the a representative of the media, a barangay
Kagawad and a PDEA representative. The seized items were then brought to the Negros
Oriental PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. Tests results
revealed that the contents of the two confiscated sachets yielded positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or more commonly known as shabu. The urine samples
from the two accused also confirmed the presence of shabu
The RTC found the accused Bocadi and Baticolon guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the offense of illegal sale of shabu and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to each pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00.).
Bocadi was also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession
of 0.17 gram of shabu. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not the trial courts erred in upholding the existence and validity of the
buy bust operation conducted by the NBI.
(2) Whether or not the trial courts erred in ruling that conspiracy to sell illegal drugs
was established by the prosecution
Rulings:
(1) No, the courts did not err in its decision. In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the prosecution is able to establish the
following essential elements: (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 its
payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The
prosecution proved that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted with SI Fineza
as the buyer and Baticolon, in connivance with Bocadi, as the sellers of the shabu.
(2) No. The testimony of prosecution witness SI Fineza not only established the fact
of sale of shabu, but also the fact that Baticolon and Bocadi acted in concert in
committing the crime. As correctly noted by the appellate court, although Baticolon
was not the one who offered and delivered the shabu to the poseur buyer, his act
in thereafter receiving the marked money gives rise to the inference that he was in
connivance with the seller.

Case # 7 People vs. Guinto

G.R No. 198314

Facts:
On January 20, 2004, the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Task Force (AIDSTF),
instituted a buy bust operation after receiving an information given by a female caller that
a certain "Chard" was selling shabu in a place located at 137 MC Guinto, Barangay
Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. After the transaction of sale of illegal drugs, seizure, arrest and
marking, the buy-bust team brought Guinto to Pasig City Police Station and turned him
over to SPO2 Basco for investigation. PO1 Mendoza who was the poseur buyer then
turned over the confiscated drugs to SPO2 Basco. Consequently, SPO2 Basco asked for
a laboratory examination request to determine the chemical composition of the
confiscated drugs. Thereafter, confiscated drug was brought by PO1 Noble to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination. The Forensic
Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory conducted an examination on the samples
submitted and they yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride
commonly known as shabu.
The RTC found Guinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs in violation of Sec. 5 of R.A No. 9165. On appeal, the appellate court
affirmed the ruling of the trial court. It ruled that all the elements of illegal sale of
dangerous drug were proven as testified by the police officers PO1 Mendoza and PO1
Familara. Further, it held that the prosecution has proven as unbroken the chain of
custody of evidence and the regularity of performance of the police officers who
conducted the operation.

Issue:
Whether or not Guinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs in violation of Sec. 5 of R.A No. 9165.

Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the finding of the trial courts. It find that the
prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti. This is fatal in establishing
illegal sale. Moreover, the conflicting statements of the policemen on material points
tarnished the credibility of the testimony for the prosecution.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that each element that constitutes an
illegal sale of dangerous drug was present to convict the accused. Upon evaluation of the
testimonies of PO1 Familara and PO1 Mendoza, it is apparent that there is an
inconsistency on the identity and number of plastic sachets bought from the accused.
This case exemplifies the doctrine that conviction must stand on the strength of
the Prosecution’s evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. Evidence proving the
guilt of the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt.1âwphi1 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.

Case #8 People vs. Punzalan

G.R No. 199892

Facts:
On November 3, 2009 Intelligence Agent 1 Liwanag Sandaan (IA1 Sandaan) and
her team implemented a search warrant to (i) make an immediate search of the
premises/house of accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, Vima Punzalan,
Jaime Punzalan, Arlene Punzalan-Razon and Felix Razon who are all residents of 704
Apelo Cruz Compound, Barangay 175, Malibay, Pasay City; and (ii) to seize and take
possession of an undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs, including the
proceeds or fruits and bring said property to the court.
Before proceeding to the target area, the PDEA team passed by the barangay hall
to coordinate with Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Flores, Kagawad Larry Fabella and
Kagawad Edwin Razon. The team likewise brought with them a media representative
affiliated with "Sunshine Radio" to cover the operation. From the barangay hall, they
walked toward the target place using as a guide the sketch they prepared.
When they arrived inside the house, the team immediately saw plastic sachets
placed on top of the table. Pagaragan immediately marked the seized items by placing
the marking "ADP". After searching and marking the evidence found on the first floor, the
team, together with the barangay officials and accused-appellants, proceeded to, and
conducted the search on the second and third floors but found nothing. They went
downstairs where they conducted the inventory of recovered items.
After the arrest, accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan were brought to
the PDEA Office in Quezon City for investigation. Laboratory examination of the seized
pieces of drug evidence was also conducted and gave positive results for the presence
of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug.
Thereafter, the accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 for illegal possession of 40.78 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride
otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug.
On March 29,2010 the Regional Trial Court charged the accused-appellants for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced them to suffer a penalty
of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years,
as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction
of accused-appellants. The CA held that there was a valid search and seizure conducted
and the seized items are admissible in evidence. The prosecution was able to prove all
the elements of illegal possession of dangerous 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 possessed the said drug.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not the search warrant issued was valid;
(2) Whether or not there was an unbroken chain of custody;
(3) Whether or not the court erred in rendering the accused-appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.

Rulings:
(1) In the instant case, aside from their bare allegation, accused-appellants failed to
show that the application for search warrant of the subject premises was not
approved by the PDEA Regional Director or his authorized representative. On the
contrary, the search warrant issued by the RTC of Manila, Branch 17 satisfactorily
complies with the requirements for the issuance thereof as determined by the
issuing court.
 (2) As to accused-appellants' assertion that the chain of custody rule has not been
complied. The fact that the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was not signed
by Atty. Gaspe does not undermine the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal
drugs seized from accused-appellants. The failure to strictly comply with the
prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not render an arrest
of the accused 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.
(3) Finally, the Supreme Court finds no error on the part of the CA in affirming the trial
court's conviction of accused-appellants of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-
appellants Jerry Punzalan and Patricia Punzalan of the crime charged.

Case #9 Dela Riva vs. People

G.R No. 212940

Facts:
On April 27, 2009 a confidential agent reported to the officers at the National
Headquarters Special Enforcement Services, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) Headquarters at Brgy. Piñahan, Quezon City that a certain Chris, who turned out
to be appellant herein, is doing illegal drug activities at Brgy. Calapacuan, Subic,
Zambales.
Acting on the report, a briefing was conducted to entrap the suspect. IO1 Enrique
Lucero was assigned as the poseur-buyer. The team proceeded to the entrapment
operations. After successfully conducting the operation, Agent Lucero executed the pre-
arranged signal and after informing appellant of his rights, they immediately left the area.
The inventory was conducted at the National Headquarters of PDEA for security and
safety considerations. The inventory was witnessed and also signed by a Barangay
Kagawad while photographs were also taken.
The laboratory examination of the specimen yielded positive results for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant's urine was also tested and
yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride
On August 30, 2012, the RTC convicted Dela Riva for the offense charged. The
RTC found that all the elements of the crime were established, to wit: 1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment thereof.
 On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. It basically stated that the
integrity of the drugs seized from the accused was preserved and that the chain of custody
of the subject drugs was unbroken. The CA pointed out that non-compliance with the strict
directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case
if there were justifiable grounds for the lapses committed and the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized were preserved.
Aggrieved, Dela Riva filed a petition to the Supreme Court seeking the reversal of
the CA decision and a judgment of acquittal.

Issues:
Whether or not there was a broken chain of custody that would render the acquittal
of accused-appellant.

Ruling:
Yes. In the instant case, the prosecution broke the first link when the buy-bust team
failed to immediately mark the seized drugs, conduct a physical inventory and photograph
the same after the arrest of the accused and the confiscation of the seized drugs. The
law requires that the marking, physical inventory and photograph be conducted at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever
is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. Additionally, the law requires that the said
procedure must be done 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. Surprisingly, the PDEA agents in this case failed to observe the proper
procedures.
The prosecution had the chance to redeem their cause through the saving
mechanism provided in the last paragraph of Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of R.A.
No. 9165 which provides that non-compliance with the safeguards of the chain of custody
would not be fatal to the prosecution's cause if there would be a justified explanation for
it. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to provide a credible and convincing explanation,
justifying the marking, physical inventory and photographing of the seized items in the far
away PDEA National Headquarters in Quezon City rather than in the nearer PDEA
Regional Office in Pampanga.
Therefore, finding the chain of custody broken and uncompiled with, without
justifiable grounds, the Court reversed the decision and granted the acquittal of Dela Riva.
Case #10 People vs. Asignar
G.R No. 206593

Facts:
On August 24, 2004, the RTC found Ramonito Asignar guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for violation of Section 5, Section 11 and Section 12 of R.A 9165.
According to the RTC, the seller and the buyer of shabu are clearly identified. They
both testified. The 0.02 gram of shabu taken from accused-appellant was identified,
marked, presented and admitted in evidence. it was found positive for the presence of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride.6 The chain of custody of the object evidence was
also well established. Accused-appellant was also found in possesion of three packets
with traces of shabu and shabu paraphernalia. They were clearly identified, maked,
presented and admitted in evidence. There is no doubt therefore that the accused-
appellant had intent to possess them.
On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the RTC, finding accused-
appellant guilty of all the charges. The Court of Appeals found that defense of exortion
was solely on accused-appellant's testimony and no witness was presented to
corroborate his testimony.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Ruling:
Yes. For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, only the following
elements are essential: (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 its payment. What is
material is proof that the sale took place, coupled with the presentation of evidence of the
seized item, as part of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer
and receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust
transaction.
Furthermore, the defense of extortion, used by accused-appellant, is greatly
disfavored. Extortion can easily be concocted and fabricated. Accused-appellant could
have presented his mother-in-law to corroborate his story but failed to do so. He could
even have presented any of his nieces or nephews who he claims were nearby when he
was brought to the hut. In failing to do so he was not able to strengthen an already weak
defense. The Court finds no reason to reverse the decision of the CA in affirming the
decision of the RTC.

Case # 11 People vs. Breis

G.R No. 205823

Facts:
On February 10, 2009 an informant went to the PDEA-CAR field office at Melvin
Jones, Harrison Road, Baguio City and offered the information that the accused were
bound to transport a box of marijuana from Baguio City to Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga.
Mangili gathered that the accused have been frequently traveling from Pampanga to
Baguio to get marijuana bricks from their supplier at La Trinidad, Benguet. On the same
day, an entrapment operation was conducted against Breis and Yumol. After the conduct
of the operation agent Peralta then informed the accused that they were being arrested
for violation of Rep. Act No. 9165 and then he read their constitutional rights in Pilipino to
them. Thereafter, documentation and inventory was conducted. The accused were then
brought to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) and Medico-Legal
Certificates were issued showing that the accused had no external signs of physical
injuries at the time of their examination. Chemistry Report No. D-08-2010 indicates that
the confiscated items from the accused yielded positive to the presence of marijuana, a
dangerous drug.
The RTC found the accused Breis and Yumol guilty beyond reasonable doubt in
violation of RA No. 9165. In their appeal, appellants argued that the PDEA agents did not
comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165, and that the prosecution failed
to establish the chain of custody over the seized items. But, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the trial court, holding that the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 were satisfied.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt in violation of the
provisions of RA 9165.

Ruling:
Yes. The chain of custody remains unbroken. The PDEA agents who
apprehended appellants did not deviate from the procedure prescribed by law and
regulations under Section 21 of RA No. 9165. Chain of custody means the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of seizure/confiscation
to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
What assumes important in drug cases is the prosecution's proof, to the point of moral
certainty, that the prohibited drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is
the same item recovered from his possession.
Appellants insists that the PDEA agents should have conducted the inventory at
the place where the drugs were seized. However, the IRR clearly provides that in case of
warrantless seizures, the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. The physical
inventory and photograph were conducted at the PDEA-CAR field office.
The requirement of the presence of a representative from the media and the DOJ,
and any elected public official during the physical inventory and photograph was also
complied with. The representatives from the media and the DOJ and an elected barangay
official were present at the inventory conducted at the PDEA-CAR field office, as
evidenced by their signatures on the inventory of seized item. Hence, the court found no
deviation from the procedure prescribed by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165
and its IRR.

Case #12 Dela Cruz vs. People

G.R No. 200748

Facts:
On January 31, 2006 the agents and special investigators of the National Bureau
of Investigation, Central Visayas Regional Office (NBI-CEVRO), received a Complaint
from Corazon Absin (Corazon) and Charito Escobido (Charito). The complainants
claimed that at 1:00 a.m. of that same day, Ariel Escobido (Ariel), the live-in partner of
Corazon and son of Charito, was picked up by several unknown male persons believed
to be police officers for allegedly selling drugs. An errand boy gave a number to the
complainants, and when the latter gave the number a ring, they were instructed to
proceed to the Gorordo Police Office located along Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. In the
said police office, they met "James" who demanded from them ₱100,000, later lowered
to ₱40,000, in exchange for the release of Ariel. After the meeting, the complainants
proceeded to the NBI-CEVRO to file a complaint and narrate the circumstances of the
meeting to the authorities. While at the NBI-CEVRO, Charito even received calls
supposedly from "James" instructing her to bring the money as soon as possible.
The NBI-CEVRO’s special investigators verified the text messages received by the
complainants.1âwphi1 A team was immediately formed to implement an entrapment
operation, which took place inside a Jollibee branch at the corner of Gen. Maxilom and
Gorordo Avenues, Cebu City. The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz by using a
pre-marked 500 bill dusted with fluorescent powder, which was made part of the amount
demanded by "James" and handed by Corazon. Petitioner was later brought to the
forensic laboratory of the NBI-CEVRO where forensic examination was done by forensic
chemist Rommel Paglinawan. Petitioner was required to submit his urine for drug testing.
It later bore a positive result for presence of dangerous drugs as indicated in the
confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology (DangerousDrugs) Report No. 2006-TDD-
2402 dated 16 February 2006.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 58 of Cebu City, in its Decision dated 6
June 2007, found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15,
Article II of R.A. 9165. CA thereafter affirmed the decision of the RTC.

Issue:
Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal.

Ruling:
Yes, the drug test conducted was illegal. The drug test was a violation of
petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination. It is incontrovertible that
petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. He also asked for a
lawyer prior to his urine test. He was adamant in exercising his rights, but all his efforts
proved futile, because he was still compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under
those circumstances. In the face of these constitutional guarantees, we cannot condone
drug testing of all arrested persons regardless of the crime or offense for which the arrest
is being made. The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes
the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the accused and
not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material.

Case # 13 People vs. Romy Lim y Miranda

G.R. No. 231989

Facts:
On October 19, 2010, PDEA Regional Office X received an information from a
confidential informant that a certain Romy had been engaged in the sale of dangerous
drugs. They were instructed thereafter by their Regional Director Lt. Col. Edwin Layese
to conduct a buy-bust operation. After their preparation for the buy bust operation, they
went to the said area at around 10:00 pm. IO1 Carin and the CI knocked at the house of
Romy and Gorres came out and invited them to enter. Inside the house was Romy Lim.
When the CI introduced IO1 Carin as a shabu buyer, Lim nodded and told Gorres to get
one inside the bedroom. Gorres stood up and did as instructed. After he came out, he
handed a small medicine box to Lim, who then took one piece of heat-sealed transparent
plastic of shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin. In turn, IO1 Carin paid him with the buy-bust
money.
After examining the sachet, IO1 Carin executed the pre-arranged signal. The rest
of the team members, then immediately rushed to Lim's house. IO1 Orellan declared that
they were PDEA agents and informed Lim and Gorres, who were visibly surprised, of their
arrest for selling dangerous drug. They were ordered to put their hands on their heads
and to squat on the floor. IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda rights to them. Thereafter, IO1
Orellan conducted a body search on both.
IO1 Orellan took into custody the P500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic
sachet of white substance, and a disposable lighter. IOl Carin turned over to him the
plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the house, IO1 Orellan marked the two
plastic sachets. Despite exerting efforts to secure the attendance of the representative
from the media and barangay officials, nobody arrived to witness the inventory-taking.
The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, with IO1
Orellan in possession of the seized items. Upon arrival, they "booked" the two accused
and prepared the letters requesting for the laboratory examination on the drug evidence
and for the drug test on the arrested suspects as well as the documents for the filing of
the case. Likewise, IO1 Orellan made the Inventory Receipt of the confiscated items. It
was not signed by Lim and Gorres. Also, there was no signature of an elected public
official and the representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media as
witnesses. Pictures of both accused and the evidence seized were taken.
The day after, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered both accused and the drug specimens
to Regional Crime Laboratory Office 10. IO1 Orellan was in possession of the sachets of
shabu from the regional office to the crime lab. Based on the examination, only Lim was
found positive for the presence of shabu.
The RTC rendered a guilty verdict against Romy Lim for illegal possession and
sale of dangerous drug shabu and acquitted Gorres for lack of enough evidence.
On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. It agreed with the finding of the trial court
that the prosecution adequately established all the elements of illegal sale of a dangerous
drug as the collective evidence presented during the trial showed that a valid buy-bust
operation was conducted. Likewise, all the elements of illegal possession of a dangerous
drug was proven. Lim resorted to denial and could not present any proof or justification
that he was fully authorized by law to possess the same.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a broken chain of custody amounting to the acquittal of
Romy Lim.

Ruling:
Yes. To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence admissible, the
proponent needs only to prove a rational basis from which to conclude that the evidence
is what the party claims it to be.13 In other words, in a criminal case, the prosecution
must offer sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an
item still is what the government claims it to be.14 Specifically in the prosecution of illegal
drugs, the well-established federal evidentiary rule in the United States is that when the
evidence is not readily identifiable and is susceptible to alteration by tampering or
contamination, courts require a more stringent foundation entailing a chain of custody of
the item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has
either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.
The Sc have held that the immediate physical inventory and photograph of the
confiscated items at the place of arrest may be excused in instances when the safety and
security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items
seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those
who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault. The present case is
not one of those.

Case #14 Estipona vs. Lobrigo

G.R No. 226679

Facts:
On March 21, 2016, petitioner Estipona, Jr. was charged with violation of Section
11 of RA 9165.
On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a
Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to enter
a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12 of the same law, with a penalty of rehabilitation
in view of his being a first-time offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug
seized in his possession.
According to Estipona, Section 23 of RA 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining in
all violations of said law violates (1) the intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section
2 thereof; (2) the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution; and (3) The principle of separation of powers among the
branches of the government.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional as it encroached upon
the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure.
(2) Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for being violative of the
Constitutional right to equal protection of the law.

Rulings:
(1) Yes. The Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate rules of pleading,
practice and procedure is now Their exclusive domain and no longer shared with
the Executive and Legislative departments.
The Court further held that the separation of powers among the three co-equal
branches of our government has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power
to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of
this Court. The other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws
or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural rules
promulgated by the Court.
(2) The Supreme Court did not resolve the issue of whether Section 23 of R.A. No.
9165 is contrary to the constitutional right to equal protection of the law in order
not to preempt any future discussion by the Court on the policy considerations
behind Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165.
Pending deliberation on whether or not to adopt the statutory provision in toto or a
qualified version thereof, the Court deemed it proper to declare as invalid the
prohibition against plea bargaining on drug cases until and unless it is made part
of the rules of procedure through an administrative circular duly issued for the
purpose.