List of cases:
Held: Mandatory drug testing of persons charged with criminal offense having
1. Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drug Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency, GR 157870 (November 3, 2008); Atty. Loserna, Jr. v. Dangerous Drug Board
and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, GR 158633 (November 3, 2008);
Pimentel, Jr. v Commission on Elections, GR No. 161658 (November 3, 2008)
2. People v. Romeo Danisco and Augusto Cuadra, GR 178060 (February 23, 2011)
3. People v. Green delos Santos, GR 187736 (January 18, 2012)
4. People v Chi Chan Liu and Hui Lao Chung, GR 189272 (January 21, 2015)
5. Petition for Habeas Corpus with Petition for Relief/IBP Pangasinan Legal Aid and
Jay-R Senin v Deaprtment of Justice, Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, BIMP and PNP,
GR 232413 (July 25, 2017)
6. Jeffrey Miguel y Remegio v People, GR 227038 (July 31, 2017)
7. Estipona, Jr. v Legaspi City RTC Judge Frank Lobrigo, GR 226679 (August 15, 2017)
8. Kenneth Santos y Italig v People, GR 232950 (August 13, 2018)
9. Sen Leila M. De Lima v. Hon. Juanita Guerrero, in her capacity as Presiding Judge,
TC, Munitnlupa City, Branch 204, People of the Phil., P/Dir. Gen. Ronald M. dela
Rosa, in his capacity as Chief of the PNP, P/Supt. Philip Gil M. Philipps, in his
capacity as Director, Headquarters Support Service, Supt. Arnel Jamandron Apud, in
his capacity as Chief, PNP Custodial Service Unit and all persons acting under their
control, supervision, instruction or direction in relation to the orders that may be
issued by the Court, GR 229781 (October 10, 2017)
10. People v. Romy Lim y Miranda, GR 231989 (September 4, 2018)
11. People v. Christopher Ilagan @ Weng, GR 227021 (December 5, 2018)
12. People v. Brandon dela Cruz and James Francis Bautista, GR 225741 (December 5,
2018)
13. People v Stanley Maderazo, GR 235348 (December 10, 2018)
14. People v Emmanuel Oliva, Bernardo Barangot and Mark Angelo Manalastas, GR
234156 (January 7, 2017)
1.
imposable penalty of imprisonment of not less than six years and one day of
imprisonment. [Sec. 36(f)] and of candidates for public office whether appointed or
elected both in national or local Government [Sec 36(g)] declared as
UNCONSTITUIONAL.
2. FACTS: sometime on Sept 7, 1998, buy-bust team briefed local police of the
impending operation and proceeded to the nipa hut of Danisco. Confidential
informant and Paz (civilian volunteer) met the two accused. The informant told
accused that Paz wanted to buy P5,000 worth of marijuana. Paz handed the money
to the accused who left in a motorcycle to get the marijuana. 3 hours after, they
returned with a brick of marijuana. Danisco took the brick from Cuadra and gave it
to Paz. Paz gave the pre-arranged signal and the team apprehended Danisco first
then Cuadra. Information filed was for illegal sale of marijuana under Sec 4, Art II,
RA 6425 involving a piece of marijuana brick approximately 900 grams in
consideration of P 5,000. HELD: Appellants’ conversation with Paz bet illustrate that
they were not at all instigated to sell marijuana but were engaged in the business
of selling marijuana.
3. Delos Santos’ conduct prior to and following his apprehension evinced his guilty
knowledge of the contents of the gift wrapped box as shabu. His uncorroborated
story of having been summoned to help in the cleaning of Unit 706 was a sham
excuse… because he was no longer employed as a janitor… his willingness to run for
Wilson the errand of delivering the gift wrapped box to the unnamed person
proved that he was serving as a courier of shabu. His guilty knowledge was
confirmed by his unreasonable refusal to exit from unit 706. Had he been truly
innocent, he would have voluntarily cooperated with the NBI agents instead of
attempting to escape from them.
4. Held: Accused charged with illegal importation of regulated drugs under Sec.14, Art
III in relation to Sec 21(a), Art. IV of RA 6425 as amended by RA 7695. Black’s Law
Dictionary defines importation as the act of bringing goods and merchandise into a
country from a foreign country. Importation connotes introduction of something
into a certain territory coming from an external source. That accused were Chinese
nationals and their penchant for making reference to China where they could
obtain money to bribe apprehending officers does not mean that the confiscated
drugs came from China. Speedboat where accused were apprehended was docked
in the coast of Ambil Island, Looc, Occidental Mindoro. Drugs could have come
from some other locality within the country and not from China or any foreign port.
Liable of possession of dangerous drugs instead.
5. Held: Article 125 of the RPC can be waived if the detainee who was validly arrested
without a warrant opts for preliminary investigation. However, the waiver of Article
125 of the RPC does not vest upon the DOJ, PPO, BJMO, and PNP the unbridled
right to indefinitely incarcerate an arrested person… the waiver must coincide with
the prescribed period for preliminary investigation as mandated by Sec 7, Rule 112
 of the Rules of Court. Detention beyond this period violates accused’s
constitutional right to liberty. The rule also applies in cases where the investigating
prosecutor resolves to dismiss the case, even if such dismissal was appealed to the
DOJ or made the subject of a motion for reconsideration, reinvestigation or
automatic review. DISPOSITIVE: All detainees whose pending cases have gone
beyond the mandated periods for preliminary investigation or whose cases have
been dismissed on inquest or preliminary investigation, despite pending appeal,
reconsideration, reinvestigation or automatic review by the Secretary of Justice, are
entitled to be released pursuant to their constitutional right against unreasonable
seizures unless detained for some other lawful cause.
6. Held: Sec 23, which prohibited plea bargaining in all drug cases was declared
unconstitutional. “Any person charged under any provision of this Act, regardless of
the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-
bargaining.” Contrary to the rule making authority of the Court under Sec 5(5), Art
VIII of the 1987 Constitution giving the High Court authority to allow plea-
bargaining. “Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, pleadings, practice and procedure in al courts… Such rules
shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases… Shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights…”
7. FACTS: on September 11, 2012 at around 5:30pm, Police Chief Inspector Mendoza,
PO3 Pacis, SPO1 Bombase, a certain PO3 Ablaza, and PO2 Rosales conducted
routine patrol along Libis Talisay, Brgy 12, Caloocan City. PO3 Pacis and SPO1
Bombase rested for a while in front of a store. At a distance of about 5 meters, PO3
Pacis noticed petitioner, standing at a street corner and removing something from
his pocket. PO3 Pacis saw that it was a plastic sachet, prompting him to alert SPO1
Bombase. Discreetly, they approached petitioner to further scrutinize what he was
holding in his hands. At a distance of an arm’s length, PO3 Pacis saw that petitioner
was holding a plastic sachet containing marijuana. When PO3 Pacis and SPO1
Bombase introduced themselves as police officers, petitioner attempted to run.
However, PO3 Pacis was able to immediately grab petitioner’s hands and recover
the plastic sachet from him. SPO1 Bombase apprised petitioner his rights, while
PO3 Pacis conducted a search on the body of petitioner. The search yielded
another 12 plastic sachets of marijuana from petitioner’s pocket. Pacis marked the
seized plastic and turned over the confiscated sachets brought to the crime
laboratory for examination… petitioner tested negative for drug us but the
specimens in the plastic sachet tested positive for marijuana. RTC found petitioner
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec11. Prosecution was able to
establish the identity of the seized drugs in accordance with the requirements of
Sec 21 Art II of RA 9165 notwithstanding the absence of a representative from the
media and the DOJ, or an elected public official during the inventory of the seized
items. CA affirmed petitioner’s conviction with the modification decreasing the
maximum penalty. CA found that petitioner knowingly possessed and had under his
control marijuana without legal authority to do so, and that he was arrested in
flagrante delicto, which is justified under Sec 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
Substantial compliance Sec. 21 Art. II of the RA 9165 regarding the custody and
handling of the seized items, considering that the integrity and evidentiary value
thereof had been preserved. HELD: the appeal is partly meritorious… appeal in
criminal cases leaves the whole case open for review. When PO3 Pacis and SPO1
Bombase approached petitioner, they were not effecting a warrantless arrest just
yet; hence, there was no intrusion into the person of petitioner. Their purpose was
merely to investigate into the suspicious actuations of the latter. It was only upon
closer scrutiny that they discerned exactly what the plastic sachet contained;
hence, the warrantless arrest that they effected is justified under Sec 5(a) that
petitioner was actually committing a crime, i.e having in his possession marijuana, a
dangerous drug, without legal authority to do so in the presence of the arresting
officer, which personal knowledge they obtained in the performance of their duties
as police officers. However, the Court is wont to acquit him on the basis of the non-
observance of the stringent requirements under the IRR of RA 9165. Sec. 21 –
Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/ Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment – the PDEA
shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/
paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (a) the apprehending
officer/team having initial custody and control of drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physical inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the persons/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 who shall be requires to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/ team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; (b) Non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items. Records disclose unjustified deviations by
the police officers in the handling of the confiscated items after petitioner’s arrest.
1st, while a physical inventory of the items was prepared, no photographs thereof
was taken. 2nd, although it appears that the physical inventory had been prepared
in the presence of petitioner who merely refused to sign, it was not shown that a
representative from the media and the DOJ, as well as an elected public official had
been present during the inventory. The mere making of the seized drugs,
unsupported by a physical inventory and taking photographs, and in the absence of
the necessary personalities under the law, as in this case, fails to approximate
compliance with the mandatory procedure under Sec 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of
substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. A
 FITTING ECHO: The Court strongly supports the campaign against drug addiction
and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who
would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But
as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsion
of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual, including the
basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the
innocent and the guilty alike against any manner if high-handedness from the
authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions. Those who are supposed to
enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the
name of order. For indeed, order is too high a price for the loss of liberty.
DISPOSITION: ACQUITTED.
8. “That the accused Leila M. de Lima. Being then the Secretary of the DOJ, and
accused Rafael Marcos Z. Ragos, being then the Officer-in Charge of the Bureau of
Correction, by taking advantage of their public office, conspiring and confederating
with accused Ronnie P. Dayan, being then the employee of DOJ… did then and
there commit illegal drug trading… de Lima and Ragos, with the use of their
power… demand solicit and extort money from the high profile inmates in the New
Bilibid Prison to support the Senatorial bid of de Lima… not being lawfully
authorized by law and through the use of mobile phones and other electronic
devices… unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous drugs… give and deliver to de Lima,
through Ragos and Dayan, the proceed of illegal drug trading amounting to
5,120,000 weekly “to ???” from the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison”.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction, and Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Status Quo
Ante Order under Rule 65 of the ROC. Petitioner assails the orders and warrant
issued by respondent judge in “People v de Lima, et al.:” (1) the Order dated Feb
23, 2017 finding probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest against
petitioner de Lima; (2) the Warrant of Arrest against de Lima also dated Feb 23,
2017; (3) the Order dated Feb 24, 2017 committing the petitioner to the custody of
the PNP Custodial Center and finally, (4) the supposed omission of the respondent
judge to act on petitioner’s Motion to Quash, through which she questioned the
jurisdiction of the RTC. HELD: Petitioner disregarded the hierarchy of Courts. The
present petition is premature. Petitioner violated the rule against forum-shopping.
The RTC has jurisdiction. The respondent Judge did not abuse her discretion in
finding probablr cause to order petitioner’s arrest. The Court ordered the RTC to
proceed with dispatch with the case “People v de Lima, et al.”
9. FACTS: RTC convicted Lim of violation of Sec. 11, Art II and violation of Sec. 5. The
CA affirmed the RTC. Om=n appeal to the SC, Lim maintains that the case records
are bereft of evidence showing buy-bust team followed the procedure mandated in
Sec 21(1), Art II. HELD: Conviction is reversed and set aside, Lim should be acquitted
based on reasonable doubt. Chain of custody is but a variation of the principal that
real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence... People v
Mallillin v People adopted the US rule that when the evidence is not readily
identifiable and susceptible to alteration by tampering or contamination, courts
require more stringent foundation entailing a chain of custody with sufficient
completeness to render it improbable that the original item has been exchanged
with another or contaminated or tampered with. Lim cases mentioned in Mallillin v
People which discussed how ideally the chain of custody seized items should be
established: “As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
requires that the admission of an exhibit preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims to be. It
would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item
was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was ad what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to
the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.” Links in
the chain of custody that must be established: (1) seizure and marking of the illegal
drug covered from accused by apprehending officer (2) Turnover of the seized
illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer (3) Turnover of
the illegal drug by the investigation officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination (4) Turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic
chemist to the court. Court noted absence of an elected public official and DOJ
representative and media to witness physical inventory and photograph of the
seized items. Unacceptable justifications that it was late at night and raining and
lack of trust of brgy. official. Prosecution failed to establish details of earnest effort
to coordinate with and secure the presence of required witnesses. Court stressed in
People v Vicente Sipin strict adherence to Sec.21 is required where the quantity of
illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering
or alteration of evidence. Information against Romy Lim for illegal possession of
shabu with weight of 0.02g and information for illegal sale of shabu whit the weight
of 0.02g. must be alleged and proved that the presence of the 3 witnesses to the
physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due
to reason/s as: (1) Attendance impossible because the place was a remote area (2)
Safety threatened by an immediate retaliatory action (3) Elected officials involved
(4) Earnest efforts to secure presence of 3 witnesses within the period in Art 125
proved futile (5) Time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations
prevented law enforcers from obtaining presence of required witnesses. On July
15, 2014, RA # 10640 was approved to amend RA 9165. RA 10640 incorporated the
saving clause of Sec. 21(a), IRR, with modifications. (1) the apprehending team
having initial custody… dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments… laboratory equipment… conduct a physical inventory of
the seized items and photographs… presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated… representative or counsel, with an elected
public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Services, or the
media… required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy… physical
 inventory and the photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served, or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer… whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures…
non-compliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly prescribed by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid procedures and
custody over said items. Strict adherence to the mandatory requirement of Sec.
21(1) and its IRR maybe excused if the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated items are properly preserved. Rule applies to arrest and/or seizure by
reason of a buy-bust operation, those made in air or sea port, detention cell or
national penitentiary, checkpoint, moving vehicle, local or international package or
consented search, stop and frisk, search incident to lawful arrest, plain-view
doctrine, arrest/seizure not planned. Mandatory policy in drug related cases: (1)
Apprehending officers must state in their affidavits, compliance with requirements
of Sec. 21(1) and IRR. (2) In case of non-observance, apprehending officers must
state justification and steps taken to preserve integrity and evidentiary value of
seized items. (3) Investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case if there is no
explanation expressly declared in the affidavits. He must refer the case for further
preliminary investigation. (4) Court may either refuse to issue commitment order or
dismiss the case for lack of probable cause.
10. FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged and convicted for sale on Sept 11, 2012 of 3
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, each containing dried marijuana fruiting
tops, having a total weight of 3.20g. the CA affirmed the conviction. Prosecution
was able to prove all the elements of illegal sale of marijuana. Accused-appellant
was positively identified… discrepancies and minor inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the witnesses… not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the
crime, do not impair their credibility. CA ruled that the integrity and identity of the
seized marijuana were not compromised because the buy-bust team was bake to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized… failure of the
police officers to mark the items seized from accused-appellant Christopher
immediately upon their confiscation at the place of arrest does not automatically
impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items
inadmissible in evidence… non-compliance with Sec 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165 will
not render an accused arrest illegal or items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible. HELD: Accused-appellant acquitted. Prosecution failed to prove that
the by-bust team complied with the mandatory requirements of Sec 21 of RA 9165.
(a)No photographs of the seized drugs were taken at the place of seizure (b) No
inventory and marking of the alleged seized items done at the place of
apprehension (c) No compliance with the 3-witness rule. Based on the narrations of
the buy-bust team, not one of the witnesses required under Sec.21 present at the
time the plastic sachets were allegedly seized from accused-appellant. Reiterated
the rule in PP v Lim that the prosecution has the burden of (1) proving its
compliance with Sec 21, RA 9165, and (2) providing a sufficient explanation in case
of non-compliance. It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the 3-
witness to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not
obtained due to reason/s earlier cited in PP v Lim.
11. FACTS: Accused-appellants charged and convicted with illegal sale of Dangerous
Drugs. Around 5 o’clock in the afternoon of Aug 1, 2012, members of the Bambang
Police Station implemented a buy-bust operation against accused-appellants,
during which 0.029g of white crystalline substance was recovered. Police took
accused-appellants and the seized item to the police station to the police station
where the marking, inventory and photography were done in the presence of
Municipal Councilor Allas and Gaffuy, an employee of DOJ. The seized item was
bought to the crime lab where, aster examination, the contents thereof tested
positive for shabu. RTC held that the prosecution was able to establish that
accused-appellants sold a sachet containing 0.029g of shabu to IO1 Bugalon, which
was later on presented to the Court for identification. There was substantial
compliance with the chain of custody rule as the conduct of the marking and
photography were done at the police station and witnessed by an elected official
and a DOJ representative in the presence of the accused-appellants. CA affirmed
the RTC ruling Prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt all the
elemnts of the crime charged. The absence of a media representative in the
inventory, marking and photography of the seized item did not affect the integrity
of the corpus delicti, as a DOJ representative and the municipal councilor were
present. HELD: Acquitted as the integrity and evidentiary value of the item
purportedly seized from accused appellants were compromised. To ensure the
establishment of the chain custody and remove any suspicion of switching,
planting, or contamination of evidence, the law requires that inventory and
photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required
witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if
after the amendment of RA9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The prosecution
failed to comply with the procedure since the inventory and photography of the
seized items were not conducted in the presence of a media representative. As
evinced by the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items, only Allas and Gaffuy were
present to witness these activities. Although the prosecution in its Pre-Trial Brief
averred that “no media representative was present despite efforts xxx to secure
their presence…” this general averment, … cannot be accepted as a proper
justification to excuse non-compliance with the law. Cited in PP v. Miranda where
the Court issued a definitive reminder to prosecutors when dealing with drug cases.
It implored that “since the procedural requirements are clearly set forth in the law,
the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody
of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the
defense raises the same … possibility of a conviction overturned on the grounds
that go into evidence’s integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised
 only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised but become apparent upon conducted on the basis thereof, an inventory report was prepared. The confiscated
further review.” items were then marked and photographed, and a request for laboratory
examination was accomplished and the items seized were submitted to the PNO
12. FACTS: on March 31, 2015 before the RTC, Police Superintendent Tolentino filed 2 Crime Lab. The substance found inside the sachets were all tested positive for the
applications for search warrants against Maderazo, Alea, Mabansag and Alcantara. presence of shabu. An information for viokation of Sec 11 of RA 9165 was filed
In his applications, Tolentino alleged that he has been informed by brgy. Officials, against OLIVA. 3 separate information for violation of Sec 11 were filed against
Roco and Rivera, that Maderazo with Alea, Mabansag and Alcantara, is keeping an Oliva, Barangot and Manalastas. The RTX found appellants guilty beyond
undetermined quantity of dangerous drugs, drug paraphernalia and firearms of reasonable doubt. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto. (kuwang og
unknown caliber and ammunitions inside his residence. Accdg to Roco and Rivera, slides) Requirements to prove illegal sale of prohibited drugs. Requirements to
at 6:00am of 03-31-15, they learned that members of the Police Station will be prove illegal possession of prohibited drugs. In illegal possession of dangerous
serving a warrant of arrest against Maderazo for attempted murder. (kuwang og 2 drugs, the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused comprise of the corpus delicti.
ka slides). HELD: Petition has no merit. The rules pertaining to the issuance of The illegal drug must be produced before the court as exhibit and that which was
search warrants are enshrined in Sec2, Art III of the 1987 Constitution. “Sec 2 the exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect. The chain
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects custody carries out this purpose “as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any the identity of the evidence are removed.”
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be
issued except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may
produce and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.“ purpose of the Constitutional Provision: to prevent violations
of private security and unlawful invasion of the sanctity of the home, by officers of
the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to give remedy against such
usurpations when attempted. Tolentino, in his application for search warrant stated
that “he was informed and verily believes that the accused were keeping
dangerous drugs and paraphernalia in his residence and that he has verified the
report based on the statements executed by Rivera and Roco.” NO statement as to
when and how the surveillance was made.

13. FACTS: The Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group (SAIDSTOG),
received a report regarding the sale of dangerous drugs by certain “Manu” in
Cembo, Makati City and it nearby areas. A buy-bust operation was planned and the
buy-bust team was formed. The buy-bust team went to the exact location if
“Manu” after confirmation by the confidential informant(CI). When they arrived at
the target area, the CI pointed to Appellant Oliva as “Manu”. PO3 Marcelo and the
CI approached appellant. Marcelo was introduced to appellant as buyer who
wanted to buy P500,00 worth of shabu. Marcelo handed to the appellant Oliva the
marked money after the latter demanded the same. Appellant Oliva showed
Marcelo 4 transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substance and asked
the latter to choose one. 2 other persons, appellants Barangot and Analastas were
also at the target area to buy shabu. They and Marcelo each took ine sachet. Upon
receiving the drug, Marcelo grabbed appellants Oliva and Barangot and PO1
Catabay appeared and arrested appellant Manalastas. The police conducted a body
search on appellant Oliva and it yielded another sachet containing white crystalline
substance, the marked money and 2 more P500.00 bills. Appellant Oliva, Barangot
and Manalastas were arrested and brought to the brgy hall where an inventory was