G.R. No.

219829, January 18, 2017

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
Monir Jaafar Y Tambuyong, Accused-Appellant

FACTS
The case reviews the Decision of the Court of Appeals on February 24, 2015
affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Monir Jaafar y Tambuyong for violation of
Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The police was informed by a male civilian informant that a certain “Mana” who
was later identified as Jaafar was selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) at the
port area barangay located just beside the police station. They set-up a plan to apprehend
Jaafar. The police poseur-buyer PO1 Look gave a marked P500 bill to Jaafar. Ahmad Gani
y Idjirani (Gani) handed out the shabu to Jaafar who then gave it to PO1 Look. Eventually
the transaction was done and PO1 Look signaled the buy-bust team by lighting his
cigarette. Immediately after the arrest, PO1 Look marked the confiscated sachet of shabu
with his initials. He then turned over the sachet and the marked P500.00 bill to their team
leader. The buy-bust team brought Jaafar and Gani to the police station for investigation.
Upon examination, the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
As defense, both Jaafar and Gani told that they were inside an interne cafe and when
they went out, they were suddenly apprehended by the police and was arrested for unknown
reasons.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Jaafar for violation of Article II, Section
5 of Republic Act No. 9165. However, it acquitted Gani for insufficiency of evidence.
Jaafar appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals raising the following errors: (1) the
prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) that the police
officers neither photographed nor inventoried the seized shabu sachet and emphasized that
there were no representatives from the media and the Department of Justice as well as an
elected public official to witness the proceedings, thus breaking the chain of custody.

ISSUE
Whether or not the guilt of Monir Jaafar is proven beyond reasonable doubt despite
the non-observance of chain of custody under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165

RULING
NO. The guilt of Jaafar has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. In all
prosecutions for violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous
drug itself. Its existence is essential to a judgment of conviction. Hence, the identity of the
dangerous drug must be clearly established. Although the buy-bust team marked and
conducted a physical inventory of the seized sachet of shabu, the records do not show that
the seized sachet had been photographed. This Court finds that the prosecution failed to
show any justifiable reason that would warrant non-compliance with the mandatory
requirements in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Furthermore, there is absolutely no
evidence to show that the physical inventory was done in the presence of accused-appellant
or his representative, representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and an
elected public official. While it may be true that non-compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution's case provided that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers,
this exception will only be triggered by the existence of a ground that justifies departure
from the general rule, which the Court didn’t see in this case. Non-observance of the
mandatory requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 casts doubt on the
integrity of the shabu supposedly seized from accused-appellant. This creates reasonable
doubt in the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Article II, Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165. As such, the appeal is granted and Jaafar was acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated February 24, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01053-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant
Monir Jaafar y Tambuyong is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless
he is confined for any other lawful cause.
G.R. No. 215340, July 13, 2016
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
Gloria Caiz Y Talvo, Accused-Appellant

FACTS
PO1 Valle testified that an informant reported to the Special Operations Group of
PNP Lingayen about the rampant sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in
Barangay Pinmaludpod, Urdaneta City. A buy-bust operation team coordinated with the
Urdaneta City Police Community Precinct at Barangay Pinmaludpod was immediately
organized by the Special Operations Group. SPO1 Patricio and PO1 Valle were the poseur
buyers, while Senior Police Officer II Meginio Garcia prepared the marked money. The
team conducted a verification surveillance in Barangay Pinmaludpod and were able to
observe Caiz’s activities. Afterwhich, SPO1 Patricio, PO1 Valle, and the confidential
informant went to Caiz’s house at around 11:00 a.m. to conduct the buy-bust operation.
The informant introduced SPO1 Patricio and PO1 Valle to Caiz. As poseur buyers, SPO1
Patricio and PO1 Valle told Caiz that they would like to purchase ₱600.00 worth of shabu.
The marked money with “RDP” mark which is the initial of Patricio was used which
consisted of one ₱500 bill and one ₱100 bill. After Caiz received the marked money, she
handed a small transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to SPO1
Patricio. SPO1 Patricio signaled to the police by removing his bonnet. SPO1 Patricio and
PO1 Valle identified themselves to Caiz as police officers and proceeded to arrest her.
Caiz was informed of her constitutional rights and PO1 Valle frisked her right after
she was arrested and recovered the marked money and two more plastic sachets containing
shabu from her pocket. Caiz was then brought to the PNP office in Lingayen for
interrogation and documentation. The items recovered from Caiz were turned over by PO1
Valle to SPO1 Patricio for marking purposes. PO1 Valle testified that the seized sachets
were marked by SPO1 Patricio immediately after Caiz was arrested. On the other hand,
SPO1 Patricio testified that the seized sachets were marked at the police station. After
marking, SPO1 Patricio surrendered the marked plastic sachets to their investigator, PO3
Michael Datuin, at their Lingayen Office for transmittal to the crime laboratory. The
Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector issued an initial laboratory report stating that the
contents of the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet weighed 0.05 gram and tested positive
for shabu.

ISSUE
Whether or not the guilt of Gloria Caiz is proven beyond reasonable doubt despite
the non-observance of chain of custody under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165

RULING
NO. The guilt of Caiz has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The totality of
the procedural lapses committed by the police officers leads this Court to doubt the
integrity of the corpus delicti. Non-compliance is tantamount to failure in establishing
identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an element of these offenses, non-
compliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused.Courts are reminded to exercise
a higher level of scrutiny when deciding cases involving miniscule amounts of dangerous
drugs. There should be stricter compliance with the rule on the chain of custody when the
amount of the dangerous drug is minute due to the possibility that the seized item was
tampered. The failure to prove the preservation of the integrity of the corpus delicti in
dangerous drugs cases will lead to the acquittal of the accused on the ground of reasonable
doubt. As such, the appeal is granted and Caiz was acquitted.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated August

29, 2014 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06167 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-
appellant Gloria Caiz y Talvo is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention
unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.
G.R. No. 192947, December 09, 2015
Melanie E. De Ocampo, Petitioner,
vs.
RPN-9/Radio Philippines Network, Inc., Respondent

FACTS
Melanie De Ocampo was the complainant in a case for illegal dismissal, unpaid
salaries, damages, and attorney's fees against respondent Radio Philippines Network, Inc.
(RPN-9) and several RPN-9 officers, namely: President Cerge Remonde; News and
Current Affairs Manager Rodolfo Lacuna; and Human Resources Manager Lourdes
Angeles.
This case is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, filed under Rule 45 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, prays that the assailed March 5, 2010 Decision and July 8, 2010
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108457 be reversed and set aside.
The Petition further prays that the recomputation that petitioner Melanie De Ocampo
sought in the monetary award she had already received be permitted in order that she may
receive additional backwages, separation pay, and 13th month pay, as well as 12% interest
per annum.

ISSUE
Whether or not Melanie De Ocampo may still seek a recomputation of and an
increase in the monetary award given to her

RULING
NO. It is basic that a judgment can no longer be disturbed, altered, or modified as
soon as it becomes final and executory. Once a judgment becomes final, the court or
tribunal loses jurisdiction, and any modified judgment that it issues, as well as all
proceedings taken for this purpose, is null and void. Filing a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure shall not interrupt the course of the principal
case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued
against the public respondent from further proceeding in the case. The pivotal facts of this
case are also settled. The Decision having attained finality, and as this case does not fall
under any of the recognized exceptional circumstances, there remains no opening for
revisiting, amending, or modifying Executive Labor Arbiter Manansala's judgment. No
recourse, whether in law or equity, leaves room for petitioner to avail herself of the
modifications she seeks. The most basic legal principles dictate that Executive Labor
Arbiter Manansala's Decision in all its aspects has long attained finality and may no longer
be revisited. Principles of equity require that petitioner be bound by her own omissions and
declarations.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed
March 5, 2010 Decision and July 8, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals Former Sixth
Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 108457 are AFFIRMED.