PEOPLE vs ALEJANDRO

A Confidential Informant informed the PDEA that he was able to set up a deal with a certain
“Aida” who directed him to look for a buyer of 100 grams of shabu. The money to be used in the
buy-bust operation was then placed in a belt bag. Thereafter, the policemen conducted a
surveillance of the house of “Aida” and the following day, conducted a buy-bust operation.

Upon arriving, the Revo (car driven by Cariaso) was parked in front of the house of Aida. The
confidential informant then introduced one of the policemen to “Aida” as the buyer. The
policeman, SPO1 Cariaso then asked where the shabu is, to which Aida answered that they
should wait for Alejandro, herein accused. They went inside the Revo to wait for Alejandro. Upon
arrival, Alejandro alighted from his car and went inside the Revo carrying an item wrapped in
newspaper and inside it was a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
After SPO1 Cariaso gave the belt bag, he immediately pressed the call key of his cellphone
as a sign that the sale was done. The team then rushed towards the Revo and introduced
themselves as PDEA agents; they arrested Alejandro and “Aida” who was later identified as
Imelda Solema, and another woman passenger inside the Vios.

In their defense, Alejandro contended that he was supposed to visit Imelda because her
girlfriend will be home soon from Japan; that upon entering the house of Imelda, he was
immediately grabbed by a man who made him lie down, took his belt bag and handcuffed him.

The seized plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was marked by SPO1 Cariaso
with his initials and signed it at the bottom. The accused together with the confiscated items,
were brought to the PDEA which were inventoried by the investigator in the presence of Cariaso,
a media representative and a barangay councilor. A request for laboratory examination of the
seized transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was prepared. The
request for laboratory examination and the specimen were also brought to PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory Office (-this is in relation sa RULING kaya ko sinama)

RTC – found that the police officers complied with all the requirements in conducting a buy-bust operation;
finding the accused guilty of violating Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

CA – (1) affirmed Alejandro’s conviction; (2) likewise convinced that the corpus delicti of the crime has
been established; (3) that the failure to strictly comply with the guidelines of RA 9165 does not necessarily
render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible

ISSUE: Whether or not the failure to comply with the guidelines renders the evidence for the violation of
RA 9165 inadmissible.

RULING: NO

In the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following 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
It must be proved that the transaction of sale actually took place, couple with the
presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as evidence

The Court also laid down the elements of the offense (sale of dangerous drugs), to wit:
(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. All these elements were present
in the said case and were established in court.

The Court, in relation to the third contention/ruling of CA, ruled that it does not matter if the
policemen failed to follow the procedural aspect of the chain of custody so long as such chain of
custody was proven to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case:

The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the transparent
sachet; that from the time the sale occurred, only SPO1 Cariaso was in the
possession until it was brought to PDEA; and while the marking was not immediately
made at the crime scene, it does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody
as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized have been preserved

The second link is the turnover of the shabu at the PDEA office

Third link constitutes the delivery of the request for laboratory examination and
the specimen to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory; that SPO1 Cariaso himself
personally turned over the specimen to the PNP

The fourth link seeks to establish that the specimen submitted for laboratory
examination is the one presented in court. Forensic Chemical Officer Police Inspector
Apostol identified the specimen with markings of Cariaso’s initials presented as evidence in
court as the same specimen he examined and which he found positive for shabu.

ACCUSED: CONVICTED

PEOPLE vs ONIZA

Policemen received an information from a police asset that a certain Mercy Oniza was involved
in selling dangerous drugs. They immediately formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation,
coordinated with PDEA, and brought with them two pieces of pre-marked 100-peso bills. Upon
arrival (Kasiglahan Village, Brgy. San Jose), the police informant approached Mercy Oniza
together with his husband, Romeo, and initiated the purchase. After giving the 100-peso bills
and receiving the plastic sachet of white crystalline substance, the police informant scratched his
head as a signal for the police officers to make an arrest. Upon seeing the police, they quickly
ran inside the house but the policemen were able to catch and frisked them.

In their defense, the spouses contend that they were asleep at their home when they were
awakened by a commotion outside their house and found policemen therein, frisked them and
forced them into the owner-type jeep.

RTC; CA – found Oniza guilty of possession of dangerous drugs

ISSUE: W/N the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that spouses were in possession
of and were selling dangerous drugs when the team of police officers arrested them
RULING: NO

The prosecution carried the burden of establishing the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs that the
police allegedly seized from the accused. It should establish the following links in that chain of custody
of the confiscated item: (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 marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
The Court laid down rare exceptions with respect to the first required link: (1) that there must be
justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the procedure; and (2) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved

The police officers did not even make a physical inventory of the seized drugs nor did they take
a picture of the same in the presence of the accused, someone in the media, a DOJ
representative, and any elected public official. Plus, they did not even provide a reason for such
failure to do so. Therefore violating RA 9165 which required that:
“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 DOJ,
and any elected public official…”

The Court also emphasized that no such evidence exists pertaining to the prosecution’s evidence
that the substances, which the police chemist examined and found to be shabu. No police officer
testified out of personal knowledge that the substances given to the police chemist and examined
by her were the very same substances seized from the accused.

ACCUSED: ACQUITTED

PEOPLE vs CLIMACO

Some members of the Laguna Special Operation Team, Members of the Provincial Intelligence
and Investigation Division conducted a briefing regarding a drug operation against a certain
Gomer Climaco. Ignacio was then tasked to act as the poseur-buyer. The team also armed with
a Warrant of Arrest for illegal drugs issued by a Judge. Upon arrival, PO1 Ignacio approached
Climaco for shabu to which the latter gave to him. After receiving, PO1 Ignacio scratched his
head to signal the team that the sale effectuated.

Climaco testified that when he was at his house feeding the chicken, four unidentified armed
men suddenly arrived and frisked him, handcuffed him, and brought him to the police station
alleging that somebody bought shabu from him.

RTC; CA – declared Climaco guilty of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu
ISSUE: W/N the guilt of Climaco for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu was
proven beyond reasonable doubt

RULING: NO

The Court discussed the elements necessary for the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu:
(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. That it is essential that such sale be proved
to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti
or the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.

On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
the following elements must be established: (1) 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) accused freely and consciously possessed the drug

The Court applied the ruling in Malilin vs People wherein, the mere fact of unauthorized
possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain
a finding of guilt; that more than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally
possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be
established.

In the case at bar, PO1 Ignacio claimed that the substances seized from Climaco were marked
as TR-R and TR-B, however, according to the Chemistry Report, the plastic sachets submitted
for examination carried the markings GSC-1 and GSC-2. The prosecution did not even bother to
explain such inconsistencies.
Since the markings are different, the Court ruled that there is no moral certainty that the
substance taken from Climaco is the same prohibited drugs submitted for examination and
presented to the court

ACCUSED: ACQUITTED

PEOPLE vs CLARA

A male informant told the policemen that a certain “Ningning” was selling drugs somewhere in
Quezon, City. A buy-bust group was then created. Upon arrival, PO3 Ramos and the informant
knocked on the door of the house and met with Joel, “Ningning’s” uncle, to which the latter asked
for the payment and upon receiving such, went upstairs and called Ningning, who opened the
door of her room, gave her the payment, and handed Joel the shabu, which in turn was handed
to PO3 Ramos. PO3 Ramos then touched his head as a pre-arranged signal to notify his team of
the consummation of the illegal sale. They were able to apprehend Joel but Ningning was able
to escape.
Joel denied the allegations; that he was inside his house sleeping, however, he was also
inconsistent with his testimony when he testified that all of his siblings were in the province and
his only companions in the house were his nephew and his niece. However, when asked why the
door was still open at around 10:00 in the evening, he replied that he was waiting for his sister.

During the trial, the testimonies of the policemen were inconsistent with each other.

(1) PO3 Ramos stated that (a) PO1 Jimenez was present at the time of arrest, (b) that the
informant was a male) and (c) that Jimenez possessed the plastic sachet containing shabu
seized from Joel

(2) SPO2 Nagera, on the other hand, contend that (a) the informant was a female (b) that
PO3 Ramos was the one holding the plastic sachet before it was turned over for investigation

(3) PO1 Jimenez’s version, however, also differed from the versions presented by the two:
(a) that the plastic sachet was already marked by the apprehending officers when it was
turned over for investigation

RTC; CA – Joel Clara guilty of the crime in violation of RA 9165 / drug pushing; that all the
elements of an illegal sale of dangerous drugs were present

ISSUE: Whether or not the inconsistencies in the testimonies is material to the crime charged.

RULING: YES

The Court ruled that even though the testimony of Joel was inconsistent, the lapses of the
prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
indeed committed the crime; that 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.

Inconsistencies and discrepancies referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the
crime do not diminish the witnesses’ credibility. If the cited inconsistency has nothing to do with
the elements of the crime, it does not stand as a ground to reverse conviction. However, in this
case, the material inconsistencies are furthered by inconsistencies of the police officers on minor
details. Their inaccurate recall of events amounted to irregularities that affected the presumption
and tilted the evidence in favor of the accused.

Applying the “objective test” in determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding
the conduct of buy-bust operation, the prosecution failed to present a clear picture on how the
police officers seized and marked the illegal drug recovered and how the specimen was turned
over by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer

To establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, following links must be establish: (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
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
As to the first link, the three police officers failed to agree on who among them marked
the plastic sachet

As to the second link, police officers cannot seem to agree on who among them held the
item confiscated from the time of arrest and confiscation until it was turned over to the
investigator.