Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and its Implementing Rules and

Regulations

Cases:

1. People v Andaya, GR 183700

G.R. No. 183700 October 13, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. PABLITO ANDAYA y REANO, Accused-Appellant.
Ponente: Justice Bersamin
FACTS:
 On 16 December 2002, an entrapment operation was conducted on the house of
accused-appellant Andaya. The buy-bust operation was readied and two (2) ₱
100 were marked as X and was given to the poseur-buyer asset. The poseur-
buyer knocked on the door of the accused and the transaction was
consummated. The pre-determined signal was given and the police officers
approached and arrested Andaya.

 SPO2 Lopez received the marked money and the specimen; which was
transferred to SPO2 Mercado who recorded it to the police blotter; and from
Mercado, the specimen confiscated was sent to the Regional Crime Lab and was
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

 In his defense, accused claimed that he was with his family when the operation
happened and the police searched the house. Finding no gun or drugs, he was
arrested and was later released. He received a subpoena from the public
prosecutor’s office three days after.

 RTC Ruling: GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of illegal sale of

dangerous drugs.

 CA Ruling: Affirmed RTC Ruling in toto.

ISSUE:
WON accused-appellant is guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
HELD:
NO. Andaya is acquitted due to reasonable doubt.
To secure the conviction of the accused who is charged with the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs as defined and punished by Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 (Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002), the State must establish the concurrence of
the following elements, namely: (a) that the transaction or sale took place between the
accused and the poseur buyer; and ( b) that the dangerous drugs subject of the
transaction or sale is presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Proof of the
transaction must be credible and complete. Burden of proof is on the State.
Here, the confidential informant was not a police officer. He was designated to be the
poseur buyer himself. It is notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested
Andaya on the basis of the pre-arranged signal from the poseur buyer. The pre-
arranged signal signified to the members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had
been consummated between the poseur buyer and Andaya. However, the State did not
present the confidential informant/poseur buyer during the trial to describe how exactly
the transaction between him and Andaya had taken place. There would have been no
issue against that, except that none of the members of the buy-bust team had directly
witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur buyer due to their
being positioned at a distance from the poseur buyer and Andaya at the moment of the
supposed transaction.

2. People v Enumerable, GR 207993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs. GERARDO ENUMERABLE y DE VILLA, Appellant.
Ponente: J. Carpio
FACTS:
 On 27 May 2004 at 11:30 AM, an entrapment operation was prepared by the
Batangas Police Station at a Petron Gas Station in Lipa. Two (2) pieces of ₱ 500
were marked along with false money to make the appearance of that amounting
to ₱ 24,000. PO3 Villas was the poseur-buyer under the guise of alias “Gerry”.
Villas approached the seller and the transaction went through and the marked
money was exchanged for three (3) sachets weighing 9.88g; they proceeded to
arrest accused-appellant Enumerable afterwards.

 The confiscated contraband labeled EMV 1-3 were taken into custody by PO3
Villas at around 5:30 PM the same day; however, it was only transferred to the
regional crime laboratory at 2:30 PM of 4 June 2004, an eight (8) day interval.
The laboratory results yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu).

 RTC Ruling: GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Illegal Sale of

Dangerous Drugs.

 CA Ruling: Affirmed RTC Ruling.

ISSUE:
WON accused-appellant can be convicted of Illegal Sale if the unbroken chain of
custody could not be established.
HELD:
NO. The Court held that the chain of custody is not indispensable provided that there is
a valid reason for failing to do such. Under the original provision of Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165, after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team is required
to immediately conduct a physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence
of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media and (3)
from the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is assumed that the presence of these
persons will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up," i.e., they are
"necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of
illegitimacy or irregularity." Now, the amendatory law mandates that the conduct of
physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1)
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel; (2) an elected public official; and (3) a representative
of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof. It must be emphasized that the prosecution must
be able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21
such as, but not limited to the following: (1) media representatives are not available at
that time or that the police operatives had no time to alert the media due to the
immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in more
remote areas; (2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available
representative of the National Prosecution Service; (3) the police officers, due to time
constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order
to comply with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely
delivery of prisoners, were not able to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section
21 of R.A. 9165.
A perusal of the records of this case shows that during the inventory, there was no
indication that it was witnessed by a representative from the media and the National
Prosecution Service, as well as that of any barangay official. Although PO1 Flores,
during his testimony, claimed that a barangay official was present during the inventory,
he did not offer any explanation as to why the said barangay official did not sign the
inventory receipt nor was there any explanation as to the absence of a media
representative and a representative from the National Prosecution Service
The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses
was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was
impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the
inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate
retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the
elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be
apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media
representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125
of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who
face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and
urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets,
prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even
before the offenders could escape. (Citation omitted)
Incidentally, in this case, no explanation, whatsoever, was provided as to the absence
of the required witnesses to the inventory. Certainly, the prosecution bears the burden
of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance
thereto in such a way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate
in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the
law.37 Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained and
must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. The rules require
that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also
clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps
they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item.38 A stricter adherence to Section
21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule since it is highly
susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration.

3. Dela Cruz v People, GR 200748

G.R. No. 200748 July 23, 2014
JAIME D. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner,
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
Ponente: CJ Sereno
FACTS:
 On 8:00 AM of 31 January 2006, the agents and special investigators of the
National Bureau of Investigation - Central Visayas (NBI-CEVRO) received a
Complaint from Corazon Absin) and Charito Escobido claiming that at 1:00 AM of
that same day, Ariel Escobido, 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. In the said
police office, they met alias "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 special investigators at the NBI-CEVRO verified the text messages received
by the complainants. 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. The officers were able to nab PO2
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
yielded a positive result for presence of dangerous drugs as indicated in the
confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology (Dangerous Drugs)/

 Defense presented petitioner as the lone witness. Dela Cruz denied the charges
and testified that while eating at the said Jollibee branch, he was arrested
allegedly for extortion by NBI agents. When he was at the NBI Office, he was
required to extract urine for drug examination, but he refused saying he wanted it
to be done by the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory and not by
the NBI. His request was, however, denied. He also requested to be allowed to
call his lawyer prior to the taking of his urine sample, to no avail.

 RTC Ruling: GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Sec. 15,

Art. II of RA 9165 (Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs).

 CA Ruling: Affirmed RTC Ruling.

ISSUE:
WON mandatory drug tests may be conducted to those crimes not under RA 9165.
HELD:
NO. Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A person apprehended or arrested, who is
found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be
imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center
for the first offense, subject to 22 JHAYRONE A. DE ROXAS UST Faculty of Civil Law
Criminal Law 2 – 1A the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any
dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment
ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from
Fifty thousand pesos (₱50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000.00):
Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also
found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for
under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any
unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. 9165.
First, "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean any person
apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context and
understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested
or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.
Hence, a drug test can be made upon persons who are apprehended or arrested for,
among others, the "importation," "sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation", "manufacture" and "possession" of dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession thereof "during
parties, social gatherings or meetings"; being "employees and visitors of a den, dive or
resort"; "maintenance of a den, dive or resort"; "illegal chemical diversion of controlled
precursors and essential chemicals"; "manufacture or delivery" or "possession" of
equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and/or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession of dangerous drugs "during
parties, social gatherings or meetings"; "unnecessary" or "unlawful" prescription thereof;
"cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs or are sources thereof";
and "maintenance and keeping of original records of transactions on dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals." To make the provision applicable
to all persons arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed under Article II is
tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning. Note that accused appellant here was
arrested in the alleged act of extortion.
Petitioner is therefore acquitted.

4. People v Morilla, GR. 189883

G.R. No. 189833 February 5, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. JAVIER MORILLA Y AVELLANO, Accused-Appellant
Ponente: J. Perez

FACTS:
 Accused-appellants Mitra and Morilla were the municipal mayor and ambulance
driver of Panukulan, Quezon respectively. On 13 October 2001, in Brgy.
Kiloloran, Real, Quezon Province. While in the middle of transport by means of
two (2) motor vehicles, namely a Starex van bearing plate number RWT-888 with
commemorative plate to read "Mayor" and a municipal ambulance of Panukulan,
Quezon Province were apprehended by police officers on checkpoint. At first, the
Starex van was able to pass through but upon stopping the ambulance, the
 police saw white crystal particles falling from sacks. The officers were able to
identify the substance as positive methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), with
an approximate weight of five hundred three point sixty-eight (503.68) kilos,
without authority to possess such.

 Mayor Mitra denied involvement saying that he was merely asked to transport
such to Manila by a certain Ben Tan without such knowledge of the illegal drugs.
The prosecution claimed that there was a conspiracy based from the mere acts
of the two (2) accused

 RTC Ruling: GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Illegal Transport of

Dangerous Drugs

 CA Ruling: Affirmed RTC Ruling.

ISSUE:
WON the prosecution was able to the existence of a conspiracy which would make
Mayor Mitra liable.
HELD:
YES. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum
since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the
sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent,
motive or knowledge.
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed
in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the minds
may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of facts and
circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of some complete
whole. In this case, the totality of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that
Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the dangerous
drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of dangerous drugs, were on convoy
from Quezon to Manila.
Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting
the dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used under the Dangerous
Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from one place to another." It was well established
during trial that Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra,
who was driving a Starex van going to Manila.

5. People vs Rolando Laylo, GR 192235

G.R. No. 192235 July 6, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs. ROLANDO LAYLO y CEPRES, Appellant.
Ponente: J. Carpio

FACTS:
 On 17 December 2005, while conducting anti-drug surveillance operations in
civilian clothes, police officers Reyes and Pastor were able to apprehend and
arrest accused-appellant Laylo while he and his live-in partner, Ritwal, offered
PO1 Reyes shabu. When accused brought out two (2) packets of shabu, the
police officers immediately introduced themselves as police officers and arrested
the two. Upon frisking Ritwal, they were able to find another sachet of shabu in a
SIM card case.

 PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor marked the three plastic sachets of shabu
recovered from Laylo and Ritwal and forwarded them to the Philippine National
Police Crime Laboratory for forensic testing. Forensic Chemist Police Inspector
Yehla C. Manaog conducted the laboratory examination on the specimens
submitted and found the recovered items positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.

 Accused-appellants claimed that they were set up and the sachets were planted
by the said police officers when they were at a sari-sari store. Their son and
three (3) neighbors corroborated their version of the story, but to no avail.

 RTC Ruling: GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Attempted Illegal

Sale of Dangerous Drugs.

 CA Ruling: Affirmed RTC Ruling.

ISSUE:
WON accused-appellants are guilty of Attempted Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
HELD:
YES. Section 3(ii) Sell. – Any act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical whether for money or any other consideration.
The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers, who were presumed to
have performed their duties in a regular manner. The RTC stated that Reyes and Pastor
were straightforward and candid in their testimonies and unshaken by cross-
examination. Their testimonies were unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in
their material points. The RTC added that the denial of appellant Laylo is weak and self-
serving and his allegation of planting of evidence or frame-up can be easily concocted.
Thus, Laylo’s defense cannot be given credence over the positive and clear testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses. From the testimonies given, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor
testified that they were the poseur-buyers in the sale. Both positively identified appellant
as the seller of the substance contained in plastic sachets which were found to be
positive for shabu. The same plastic sachets were likewise identified by the prosecution
witnesses when presented in court. Even the consideration of ₱200.00 for each sachet
had been made known by appellant to the police officers. However, the sale was
interrupted when the police officers introduced themselves as cops and immediately
arrested appellant and his live-in partner Ritwal. Thus, the sale was not consummated
but merely attempted. Thus, appellant was charged with attempted sale of dangerous
drugs. Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165 provides:
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following
unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of
the same as provided under this Act: x x x (b) Sale, trading, administration,
dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical.

6. Estipona v. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679

SALVADOR A. ESTIPONA, JR., Petitioner,
vs. HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi
City, Branch 3, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Ponente: PERALTA, J

FACTS:
 Estipona was charged with an offense under RA 9165. He wants to enter into a
plea bargaining agreement but Judge Lobrigo did not allow him to do so because
Section 23 specifically prohibits plea bargaining in drugs cases. Estipona argues
that Section 23 is unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
Is Section 23 of RA 9165, which prohibits plea-bargaining in drugs cases,
unconstitutional?
HELD:
Yes, Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for two reasons:
First, it violates the equal protection clause since other criminals (rapists, murderers,
etc.) are allowed to plea bargain but drug offenders are not, considering that rape and
murder are more heinous than drug offenses. Second, it violates the doctrine of
separation of powers by encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Supreme Court
under the constitution. Plea-bargaining is procedural in nature and it is within the sole
prerogative of the Supreme Court.
7. People v. Gaa, G.R. No. 222559
Ponente: PERALTA, J
FACTS:

A buy-bust operation was conducted by a team of PDEA agents against Adobar and his
live-in partner Ga-a in their residence. In the prosecution's version of facts, one of the
agents acted as a buyer and bought shabu worth 500 pesos from Adobar. The latter
handed one heat- sealed transparent sachet containing the shabu. After examining it,
the agent signaled her colleagues to respond to the scene. The team responded and
rushed towards Adobar, the latter ran inside his house and locked the front door to
which the team forced open. Adobar escaped and the buy-bust money wasn't
recovered.

Ga-a was inside and the team seized the 17 sachets of shabu and other drug
paraphernalia on top of a table. Ga-a claimed that the shabu were from Adobar. After
clearing the house and the inventory of the seized items, Tablate called for Acenas,
barangay captain, media representative Cabrejas, and an unidentified DOJ
representative as witnesses. Two of the Witnesses signed. After which, they the team
and Ga-a proceeded to the PDEA office.

Ga-a was acquitted by the trial court, holding that the PDEA agents had no probable
cause to search and arrest her.

ISSUE: WIN Adobar is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of sale of illegal drugs under
Sec.5, Art. 2 of RA 9165.

HELD:

NO. In the context of a buy-bust operation, its elements are 1) that the transaction or
sale took place between the accused and the poseur buyer, and 2) that the dangerous
drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in court as evidence of the "corpus
delicti".

The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crime due to the serious lapses
in observing Sec.21 of RA 9165 and the concomitant failure to trigger the saving clause.
Anent the latter point, the prosecution utterly failed to acknowledge and credibly justify
its procedural lapses and was unable to prove the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized drugs. Adobar's innocence, as presumed and protected by the Constitution, must
stand in light of the reasonable doubt on his guilt.

The prosecution arm of the government has the duty to prove, beyond reasonable
doubt, each and every element of the crime charged. In illegal drugs cases, this
includes proving faithful compliance with Sec.21 of RA 9165, being fundamental to
establishing the element of corpus delicti. In the course of proving such compliance
before the trial courts, prosecutors must have the initiative to not only acknowledge, but
also justify, any perceived deviations from the procedural requirements of Sec. 21.

8. People v Gamboa, GR 233702

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANUEL GAMBOA
G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:
During a buy-bust operation, PO2 Nieva asked appellant if he could buy P200.00 worth
of shabu, handing as payment the buy-bust money. In turn, appellant gave PO2 Nieva a
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Nieva removed his bull cap,
prompting the back-up officers to rush towards the scene and arrest appellant.
Subsequently, they recovered another plastic sachet and the buy-bust money. PO2
Nieva immediately marked the two (2) plastic sachets and inventoried the items at the
place of arrest in the presence of appellant and a media representative named Rene
Crisostomo. Photographs of the confiscated items were also taken by PO3 Benitez
during the marking and inventory. Thereafter, PO2 Nieva brought appellant and the
seized drugs to the police station where PO3 Benitez prepared the Request for
Laboratory Examination.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld appellant’s conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

RULING:
No, the police officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of
custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the
items purportedly seized from appellant.

Under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the apprehending team shall, among others,
immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph
the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items
were seized, or his 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 of the same.

An examination of the records reveals that the same was not done in the presence of
any elected public official, as well as a representative from the DOJ. In fact, such lapse
was admitted by PO2 Nieva. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to provide justifiable
grounds or show that special circumstances exist which would excuse their
transgression, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the items purportedly seized from appellant have been compromised.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for the sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the
State carries the heavy burden of proving the integrity of the corpus delicti failing in
which, renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the
RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

9. Aparante v People, G.R. No. 205695

Doctrine:
Where the amount of narcotics seized is miniscule, a stricter adherence to the
requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is required to preserve the
evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

FACTS:
An Information dated February 14, 2006 was filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Binangonan, Rizal against Aparente, charging him with violating Republic Act No. 9165.
The accused, not being lawfully authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did,
then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] feloniously and knowingly possess and have in his
custody and control 0.01 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to the test for
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation
of the above-cited law.
Prosecution Version: Prosecution witnesses testified that on the evening of February
13, 2006, they were at Barangay Pantok, Binangonan., Rizal patrolling the area as part
of surveillance operations in relation to illegal drugs and "Video Karera" activities. They
saw two (2) men, one of whom was later identified as Aparente, in an alley around three
(3) meters away. They watched as the other man handed Aparente a small plastic
sachet. They saw Aparente inspect the sachet, flicking it against the light emitted from a
street light and a lamp from a house nearby. When the police officers approached, the
two (2) men fled. Only Aparente was caught.[8] PO1 Dela Cruz told Aparente to open
his hands. They found a small sachet with a white crystalline substance,[9] which the
police officers confiscated. They brought Aparente to the Binangonan Police Station
where a police investigator marked the confiscated sachet with Aparente's initials. PO1
Dela Cruz then submitted the sachet, together with its contents, to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame. Prosecution witness Police Inspector
and Forensic Chemical Officer Antonieta Abillonar issued a Laboratory Report that
stated that the contents of the sachet tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.
Defense Version: Aparente testified that on the evening of February 13, 2006, he was
watching television with his mother, brother, and niece when five (5) persons forcibly
entered the house. They handcuffed him and searched the house. Afterwards, the
intruders told him they found shabu, which he was coerced to admit possessing.
RTC’s Ruling: The Regional Trial Court found the prosecution witnesses' testimonies
credible and gave them foil faith. The RTC found accused Jesus Aparente GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165.
CA’s Ruling: The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision. It found
that since Aparente was in the middle of violating the law at the time he was searched,
the warrantless arrest was lawfully conducted upon probable cause, The Court of
Appeals also held that the evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs was preserved,
considering that the police officers went to the police station and immediately turned
over the seized evidence, which was then marked and submitted to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame. Thus, the witnesses established an
unbroken chain of custody from the arresting officer, to the investigating officer, and to
the forensic chemist. Further, the Court of Appeals found that Aparente failed to submit
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity of the police officers'
performance of official duties.
ISSUE/S:
(1) Whether or not the circumstances of petitioner Jesus Aparente's warrantless arrest
violated his constitutional rights.
(2) Whether or not the failure to explain the lack of inventory and photographing at the
place of petitioner's arrest or at the nearest police station negates the evidentiary value
of the allegedly seized narcotics.
RULING/S:
(2) YES. Section 21 of Republic Act Mo. 9165 provides for the handling of dangerous
drugs after its seizure and confiscation:

Section 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, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) 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 arid/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[.]
In relation to the foregoing requirements, Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 provides:

(a) The apprehending officer/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 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:
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; Provided, further, that 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[.]

In People v. Holgado y Dela Cruz,[34] this Court explained in depth the significance of

meeting the foregoing requirements under the law and the implications of the failure to
meet them, especially where the amount of narcotics seized is miniscule. This Court
stressed that trial courts must carefully consider the intricacies of cases involving
Republic Act No. 9165 and employ heightened scrutiny. Thus, this Court considered
several factors in determining that violation of Republic Act No. 9165 was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. This Court noted that non-compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 produces doubt as to the origins of any seized narcotics. It
further noted that where a miniscule amount of narcotics is seized, a more exacting
compliance with the requisites of Republic Act No. 9165 is necessary. Additionally,
although non-compliance with Republic Act No. 9165 upon justifiable grounds does not
render void and invalid the seizure of the narcotics, this Court noted that no justifiable
grounds were presented to explain non-compliance with the requisites.
This Court stresses that where miniscule amounts of drugs are involved, trial courts
should require more exacting compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165. Consequently, the trial court and the Court of Appeals should
have considered the failure of the apprehending team to mark the seized drugs
immediately after seizure and confiscation. They should also have considered that it
was the investigating officer at the police station who marked the same and not the
arresting officers. The failure of the prosecution to address this issue and to provide a
justifiable reason for this are enough to cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity of the
operation.

10. People v Cabañero, G.R. No. 207229

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIEGFRED CABELLON
CABAÑERO, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 207229, September 20, 2017
JUSTICE MARVIC LEONEN

FACTS: 
On April 13, 2006, a buy bust operation was planned to capture Cabellon in the act of
selling drugs. At 7:30 p.m., PO2 Junar Rey Barangan (PO2 Barangan), PO3 Rey Bucao
(PO3 Bucao), and PO3 Reynato Abellar (PO3 Abellar) went to Sitio Jawod, Barangay
Bulacao, Talisay City to commence the buy-bust operation. The police officers had a
poseur-buyer with them. The asset poseur-buyer transacted with Cabellon in an alley,
while the police officers observed them from a distance. Once they saw the poseur-
buyer scratch his head, their pre-approved signal, the police officers descended upon
Cabellon, who then ran away upon noticing the approaching officers.6Cabellon ran and
hid inside a nearby house and the police officers followed him. The police officers
stumbled upon three men sniffing shabu inside the house, one of whom they
apprehended while the other two managed to escape. The police officers caught up with
Cabellon inside the house, whom they thereafter frisked. They recovered the marked
P100.00 and P50.00 bills from him. After Cabellon’s arrest, the poseur-buyer handed
over the sachet of shabu he purchased from Cabellon to PO3 Bucao.

That same date, a sachet marked with “SCC 04/13/06” was turned over to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory for examination. The Request for Laboratory
Examination was received by a certain PO1 Domael. P/S Insp. Mutchit G. Salinas (P/S
Insp. Salinas), a forensic chemist, confirmed executing Chemistry Report No. D-698-
2006. She testified that she had examined a heat-sealed plastic sachet of white
crystalline substance labelled with “SCC 04/13/06.” The chemistry report bore the
signatures of P/S Insp. Salinas and P/Supt. Myrna P. Areola. The specimen weighed
0.03 grams and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Cabellon
was the only defense witness and he denied selling shabu to the poseur-buyer. He
claimed that on April 13, 2006, at about 3:30p.m., he was buying barbecue when he
saw his aunt, Jane Cabellon, crying. He asked her why she was crying and he told her
that she had a fight with someone. He approached and slapped the lady his aunt had a
fight with. The lady then warned him that he would be arrested for what he had done to
her.

Later that evening, at the barbecue station, he was arrested and bodily searched by
some police officers; however, nothing was recovered from him. He claimed that he was
not informed by the arresting officers of the offense he supposedly violated.
Cabellon was then brought to the police station and was asked to call somebody. He
was also asked to pay for his release and for the settlement of the case filed against
him. He was unable to pay or give a gift and declined to make the phone call; hence, he
was charged and a case was filed against him.The RTC found that the prosecution was
able to prove all the elements for the illegal sale of shabu.Cabellon filed an appeal
before the Court of Appeals, which held that the elements for the illegal sale of shabu
were duly proven by the prosecution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not accused-appellant Siegfred Cabellon’s guilt was proven beyond

reasonable doubt despite the non-observance of the required procedure under Section
21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

RULING: 

NO. In order to sustain a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, these two (2)
elements must be established by the prosecution: “(1) proof that the transaction or sale
took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as
evidence.” To prove that the illegal sale of shabu took place, the prosecution presented
PO3 Bucao and PO2 Barangan, two (2) of the police officers who were part of the buy-
bust operation team which apprehended the accused. Both PO3 Bucao39 and PO2
Barangan testified that they had seen the accused talk with the poseur-buyer before the
latter scratched his head, signalling that the transaction had taken place. The marked
money was recovered from the accused, while the poseur-buyer turned over the sachet
with shabu he had bought from the accused to PO3 Bucao. While the prosecution may
have proven that a transaction took place, it was not as convincing in its presentation of
the alleged corpus delicti as evidence. 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.Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their
composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic
substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is
imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very
same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of
custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the
identity of seized drugs are removed. While it may be true that strict compliance with
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 may be excused under justifiable grounds, the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must still be preserved by the
apprehending officer.

The Supreme Court is not convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the identity
of the shabu supposedly seized from the accused. PO3 Bucao claimed that the poseur-
buyer turned over to him the sachet purchased from the accused and that he had
custody of the sachet until he reached the police station. He then handed the sachet to
PO3 Abellar, who supposedly prepared the request for the chemical analysis of the
seized item. However, PO3 Bucao failed to identify who placed the markings on the
sachet. Undeniably, a noticeable gap exists in the chain of custody with the
prosecution’s failure to present evidence that the seized sachet was actually marked by
any of the three apprehending officers. The prosecution likewise did not present
evidence that the seized sachet was inventoried and photographed in the presence of
the accused or his representative, a representative from the media or the Department of
Justice, and an elected public official. Neither did it provide an explanation as to why the
police officers did not follow the requirements provided under the law.This blatant lack
of compliance with the safeguards established in Republic Act No. 9165 is made even
more egregious by the fact that the seized sachet only contained 0.03 grams of shabu,
no more than a grain of rice. The danger of tampering and planting of evidence was,
thus, heightened, which should have put the lower courts on guard and not have so
easily relied on the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers in the
performance of their official acts.

As this Court stated in People v. Holgado: While the miniscule amount of narcotics
seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for
more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People, this court said that “the
likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the
exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar
in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. ACQUITTED.

11. People v Jaafar, G.R. No. 219829

People v. Jaafar, G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017
FACTS:
In an Information, accused-appellant Monir Jaafar y Tambuyong and Ahmad Gani y
Idjirani were charged with violation of R.A. No. 9165. According to the prosecution, at
8:00 a.m. on September 10, 2009, a male civilian informant reported to Chief of Police,
Police Superintendent Alberto Capacio Larubis that a certain "Mana" was selling
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) at the port area barangay located just beside
the police station. Mana was later identified as Jaafar, who sold shabu between 12:00
m.n. and 4:00 a.m. to facilitate the sale of the drug and evade arrest. Jaafar allegedly
peddled shabu in his house. Chief Larubis instructed SP04 Enrico Morales to form a
team composed of SPO3 Tabunyag, PO3 Perez, P03 Hasim, PO2 Canete, PO2 Bobby
Rey Bucoy, POl Insang, and PO1 Marlon Takazi M. Look and to schedule a buy-bust
operation the next day. He also instructed the team to coordinate with agents from the
PDEA. PO1 Look was designated as the poseur-buyer while PO2 Bucoy and PDEA
Agent Mark Dela Cruz were designated as the arresting officers. On September 11,
2009, the buy-bust team left the police station at 1:45 a.m. and went to Jaafar's house.
Jaafar met PO1 Look and the informant at the door of his house and asked them if they
were buying shabu. PO1 Look answered in the affirmative and gave Jaafar a marked
₱500.00 bill. Jaafar called for Gani inside the house. Gani came out and handed Jaafar
a sachet containing shabu. Jaafar gave the sachet to PO1 Look, who immediately lit
a cigarette-the pre-arranged signal agreed upon by the buy-bust team. The police
officers rushed to arrest Jaafar, but he managed to escape. Eventually, the arresting
officers caught up with him 30 meters away from his house.
In his defense, Gani testified that he was at an internet cafe located near the police
station at 2:00 a.m. on September 11, 2009. After stepping out of the establishment,
Gani was suddenly apprehended by unknown persons, who later identified themselves
as PO1 Look and P02 Bucoy. Meanwhile, Jaafar testified that he was at the internet
cafe at 12:00 m.n. on September 11, 2009, watching people play video games. He left
after two hours and made his way home. Upon entering an alley, Jaafar saw six
persons headed towards him. One of them pointed a gun at him and told him not to run.
Out of fear, he ran towards the main road. However, the six persons, who turned out to
be police officers, caught up with him. They conducted a body search but found nothing
since Jaafar was only wearing boxer shorts and at-shirt. Jaafar was detained after his
arrest and brought to the Office of the City Prosecutor at the City Hall of Isabela the next
day. In its Decision dated May 15, 2012, the RTC convicted Jaafar for violation of Article
II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. However, it acquitted Gani for insufficiency of
evidence.

Jaafar filed an appeal before the CA and raised the following errors: (1) the prosecution
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) the arresting team violated the
chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
CA’s Ruling: The CA ruled that although the sachet of shabu was not formally offered
in evidence during trial, it was nevertheless identified by PO1 Look and the forensic
chemist. Being part of their direct testimonies, the shabu formed part of the records of
the case. Hence, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Regional Trial Court did not err in
considering the shabu as evidence.
 
ISSUE:
Whether or not the guilt of accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt
despite the non-observance of the required procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165.
 
RULING:
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. 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. 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. 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 DOJ, and an elected public official. The buy-
bust team had an entire day within which to coordinate with the persons required by law
to be present during the physical inventory of the seized drugs. The Chief of Police
received the confidential tip early in the morning. He immediately instructed SP04
Morales to form a buy-bust team and coordinate with agents from the PDEA. The buy-
bust team had ample time to contact an elected public official and representatives from
the media and the DOJ. The prosecution established during trial and on appeal that the
buy bust operation had been carefully planned by narrating the events with intricate
detail. However, at the same time, the prosecution relied heavily on the exception to the
chain of custody rule. Worse, the prosecution did not even offer any explanation on why
they failed to comply with what was mandated under the law. Indeed, if the police
authorities had carefully planned the buy-bust operation, then there was no reason for
them to neglect such important requirements. They cannot feign ignorance of the
exacting standards under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Police officers are presumed
and are required to know the laws they are charged with executing.
 
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.

12. People v Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 229053

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.JORDAN CASACLANG DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant
LEONEN, J.:

Doctrine:
Whenever there is an unjustified noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements,
the prosecution cannot invoke the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty to conveniently disregard such lapse. Noncompliance obliterates proof of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting an accused's acquittal. Thus, the
constitutional right to presumption of innocence prevails.

FACTS:
On July 23, 2012, two (2) Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court,
charging Dela Cruz for violation of Republic Act No. 9165, Article II, Sections 5 and 11,
for the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, respectively.

the accused allegedly, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully, sell two (2) plastic
sachets of dried Marijuana leaves with a total weight of 2.8 grams, to PO1 Denver Y.
Santillan, an undercover policeman who acted as a poseur-buyer in a buy bust
operation conducted against him, which were tested and yielded positive to be that of
marijuana, a dangerous drug, without any authority to sell the same.

Defense: In his defense, Dela Cruz disclaimed any knowledge of the illegal sale and
possession of drugs. He testified that on July 10, 2012, he attended his 7:30 a.m. to
11:45 a.m. classes at the Pangasinan National High School. By lunch break, he went
with his friends to a nearby canteen, where three (3) unidentified men in civilian clothes
approached and invited him to the municipal hall. When he said he did not do anything
wrong, they assured him that they would only talk to him, and eventually asked about
the pending theft case against him. When he again told them that he did nothing wrong,
one (1) of the men pointed a gun at him and coerced him into boarding an STX
motorcycle.18

Dela Cruz further alleged that they brought him to the police station, where he was
interrogated and accused of stealing "spaghetti," a slang for cutting wires. On cross-
examination, he revealed that the men who accosted him were not the police officers
who testified against him.

RTC’s Ruling: The Regional Trial Court found Dela Cruz guilty of illegal possession
and illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Regional Trial Court also held that the
prosecution had demonstrated an unbroken chain of custody, preserving the seized
items' integrity and evidentiary value. It did not give credence to Dela Cruz's defense of
denial, holding that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
prevails over bare denials.
CA’s Ruling: Affirmed RTC’s Ruling.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the absence of an elective official, a representative from the media, and
a representative from the Department of Justice during the buy-bust operation warrants
accused-appellant Jordan Casaclang Dela Cruz's acquittal.

RULING:
Yes, The Supreme Court grants the Petition and acquits accused-appellant of the
charges.

In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first
be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation
in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.

On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it must
be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be
a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the
accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly,
in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable
doubt.

People v. Garcia emphasized that the mere marking of seized items, unsupported by a
proper physical inventory and taking of photographs, and in the absence of the persons
whose presence is required by Section 21 will not justify a conviction

As to the element of corpus delicti, Republic Act No. 9165, Section 21, as amended by
Republic Act No. 10640, lays down the requirements for the custody and disposition of
the dangerous drugs confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered:

The presence of third-party witnesses is imperative, not only during the physical
inventory and taking of pictures, but also during the actual seizure of items. The
requirement of conducting the inventory and taking of photographs "immediately after
seizure and confiscation" necessarily means that the required witnesses must also be
present during the seizure or confiscation. This is confirmed in People v. Mendoza,
where the presence of these witnesses was characterized as an "insulating presence
[against] the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination

People v. Ramos requires:

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render
the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a
showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under
Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the
prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the
representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives
were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were
employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded
as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious
attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for
non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are
ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the
information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare
for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements
beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set
procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled
not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the
Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that
under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable.71 (Citations omitted)

Prosecution witness PO1 Santillan attempted to justify the absence of the third-party
witnesses, testifying that time constraints and the uncertainty of accused-appellant's
appearance at the meeting place had prevented the team from securing their presence.
However, his own testimony belies this claim. He narrated that he recognized accused-
appellant from the week-long surveillance he had conducted prior to the buy-bust
operation. Certainly, this ample amount of time had given him several opportunities to
coordinate with any person qualified to be a witness. Yet, it appears that he opted not
to, as did the rest of the buy-bust team.

The prosecution failed to allege, let alone prove, that earnest efforts were exerted to
secure the attendance of third-party witnesses, as required by Section 21(1).
Consequently, the prosecution cannot claim that the deviation from the strict
requirements of the law was justified.

In cases of illegal drugs, there is a procedure under the chain of custody rules that is not
difficult for law enforcers to follow, especially since a person's right to liberty is at stake.

13. People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 133225

G.R. No. 133225            July 26, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs. EDWIN CONCEPCION y JACINTO, JIMMY ALMIRA y BALDONADO, HAROLD
CONCEPCION y SIOCO, and JOEY ALMODOVAR y CAPUSO, accused-appellants.
Ponente: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:
Police Inspector Isagani Montalbo Latayan and SPO2 Marcelino Perez Male (Latayan
and Male, for brevity) are members of the Fourth Narcom Regional Field Unit, NP
Narcotics Command. Their main duty as Narcom agents is to conduct operations
against violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Barangay Captain Alfredo
Alcantara of Maytalang 1, Lumban, Laguna, fed up with the rampant illegal drug
activities at the Barangay, requested the Narcom Office to conduct operation against
those persons indulging in illegal trade.

Male did the tedious and risky job. Luckily, he was able to penetrate the group by
pretending to be a pusher and joining their happenings until he gained their trust. Come,
March 20, 1996 at around 9:00 to 10:00 o'clock in the morning, he was introduce by hiS
contact man (Andres Manambit) to one of the sources of shabu in the nanme of Jimmy
at the latters house at Barangay Aplaya, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. ON the same occasion, a
sale of shabu was perfected between the two, in the presence of Adres Manambit and a
certain Joey with Jimmy to deliver to Male one half kilo of shabu at a price of
PI,000/gram. Likewise, on that instance, Jimmy called up somebody through telephone
telling the person at the end of the line that the deal was okay. They parted with the
agreement that Jimmy will bring the stuff to Lumban, Laguna together with his manager
and that Male will prepare the money.

Report of the development was immediately made to Latayan who headed a team
composed of Male, SPOI Patag, SPOI Guevarra and Yatco, to Barangay Maytalang I,
Lumban, Laguna, at around 2:00 'clock in the afternoon and waited together with some
Barangay Officials, the arrival of accused/pushers at the place of a certain alias Daboy
Manambit (Narcom's Agent/Informer), and the cousin of Andres Manambit. At around
1:00 o'clock in the morning of March 22, 1996, Jimmy arrived alone. Male and Jimmy
talked to each other and the latter asked if the money is ready. Male responded in the
affirmative to which Jimmy replied "If the money is ready, I will fetch my manager",and
left the place. After about ten (10) minutes, a white Toyota car with Plate No. TSZ-227
arrived. Jimmy first alighted from the car followed by three (3) others, who introduced
themselves by the name of Edwin, Harold and Joey. The two (Male and Jimmy)
proceeded to the terrace of the house of Daboy followed by the three. Male asked
Jimmy if the stuff was with him, and Jimmy answered by pointing to Edwin as their
manager, and added that the order was with them. Male and Edwin greeted each other.
Male asked Edwin if he can see the stuff, who answered "yes" then showed and gave
Male one (1) blue clutch bag. Edwin even told Male to see if it is real. For their part,
Joey and Harold also asked Male if the money is ready and he answered "yes". Male
opened the clutch bag and saw the plastic bag containing shabu.

Thereafter, as a pre-arranged signal to his colleagues, Male pulled out a handkerchief

from hispocket and wiped his face. With signal he gave, the members of the arresting
team approached them, and arrested the four (4) accused, and brought them to their
headquarters at Calamba, Laguna.
Respondents claim that they are merely victims of a police frame up. that the samples
examined were substituted and that the existence of marked money is necessary in the
buy bust operation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, defendants are guilty of violating the dangerous drug act

HELD:
The defense of frame up or denial, like alibi, has invariably been viewed by the courts
with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard
defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. For such a
defense to prosper, the evidence must be clear and convincing. What is material to a
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
evidence. In this regard, in a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it
must be shown that I) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to
be a prohibited or a regulated drug: 2) such possession is not authorized by law, and 3)
the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

Moreover, the Court agrees with the trial court that the accused-appellants, behaviours
during that entrapment operation show clearly that there was conspiracy between them.
It is an established rule that direct proof to show that the accused had come to an
agreement to commit a felony is not necessary. Conspiracy may be inferred from the
conduct of all accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. More
explicitly-

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Proof of the agreement need not rest
on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties
indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of
the offense. It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together
and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful
scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. It may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred
from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest.

As aptly observed by the trial court, accused-appellants being together at the early
dawn of march 22, 1996 at around 1:00 am all the way from Sta. Rosa, Laguna to
Barangay

Maytalang I, Lumban Laguna for the delivery of the shabu and the established
participation of each of the accused-appellants before, during and after the delivery of
the drug signified their concerted efforts and cooperation towards the attainment of the
criminal objective. As has been stated earlier, Jimmy was the one with who SPOT Male,
the poseur-buyer transacted for the sale of the shabu while Edwin acted as the
manager of the group. Joey and Harold's knowledge and concurrence to the transaction
were shown by their eagerness to ascertain if the money was ready.

The Court is also not persuaded that the samples examined were not taken from the
drugs seized. On the contrary, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses SPOI
Marcelino Male and Police Inspector Isagani Latayan fairly established that the shabu
taken from the appellants is the same substance examined by the forensic chemist and
later presented as evidence in court. As such, their testimonies to this effect should be
accorded more credence than accused-appellants bare denials. Certainly, the
presumption of regularity must prevail over accused-appellants' unfounded allegations.

Similarly, the accused's other contention in the demurrer to evidence that show money
wanting should be taken with a grain of salt considering the settled jurisprudence in buy
bust operation that marked money is not necessary.

Absence of marked money would not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence as
long as the prohibited stuff was presented hefore the trial court. The presentation in
Court of "marked money" used in "buy-bust operations" is not indispensable in drug
cases for the offense is committed by mere act of delivery or transfer of the prohibited
drug and the consideration for the transaction is of no moment.
The court several times stressed that the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drug is
committed once a sale transaction was consummated. The presence of actual monetary
consideration is not indispensable for the existence of the offense.
In People vs. de la Cruz, the court stated that when a police officer went through the
motions of buying prohibited drugs and his offer to buy was accepted by the accused-
seller, the crime was consummated by mere delivery of the drug purchased. The fact
that no money was actually delivered by the pretended buyer to the accused-seller did
not prevent the offenses from being committed.

Moreover, the herein accus ed are charged of (sic) delivering and transporting
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is consummated by the mere act of
passing/transporting to another with or without consideration.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Santa Cruz, Laguna, Branch
91, in Criminal Case No. SC-6011, finding all the accused-appellants guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 21 (b), Article IV, in relation to
Section 15 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended, is hereby AFFIRMED with the following
MODIFICATIONS.

14. People u. Tumulak, GR. No. 206054

G.R. No. 206054

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee

vs. MINNIE TUMULAK y CUENCA, Appellant

Ponente: BRION, J.:

FACTS:

The RTC found Mitch guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. It held that the prosecution was able to prove that (1) the arrest
resulted from a valid buy-bust operation where Sl Oliveros allegedly purchased thirty
(30) ecstasy tablets from Mitch; and (2) the confiscated drugs identified in court were
the same items found in Mitch's possession.

On appeal, the CA essentially affimed the RTC's ruling and held that the prosecution
was able to prove that the sale transaction had taken place and the existence of the
confiscated drugs. In this case, Mitch handed to SI Oliveros one (1) ecstasy tablet for
examination and demanded that the P60,000.00 be given to her before she would give
him the remaining twenty-nine (29) ecstasy tablets. The appellate court said that her act
was already tantamount to delivery and consummation of the sale of dangerous drugs;
and that Mitch's failure to hand over the remaining twenty -nine (29) ecstasy tablets is
immaterial

Further, the CA ruled that noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not
render the confiscated drugs inadmissible because the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items were preserved from the moment they were seized up to the time they
were presented in court.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether or not the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in the present case is
Consummated.

(2) Whether or not noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not render the
confiscated drugs inadmissible.

HELD:

(1) No. The illegal sale of dangerous drugs is not consummated when the seller fails

to deliver the illegal drug to the buyer.

In actons involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first
be established: (1) proof that the trans action took place and (2) the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. To prove that a sale transaction
had taken place, the following elements must be proved: (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.

The commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs requires merely the
consummation of the selling transaction which happens the moment the buyer receives
the drug from the seller. So long as the police officer went through the motion as a
buyer and his offer was accepted by the seller and the drug was delivered to the police
officer, the crime was consummated by the delivery of the goods.

In the present case, Mitch did not deliver to SI Oliveros all thirty (30) ecstasy tablets,
instead they were merely confiscated when she was arrested before she could go to the
restroom of Café Adriatico. One element of delivery of the dangerous drug is missing.
Thus, the crime was not consummated.

(2) Yes. Noncompliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal as to render an
accused's arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of
his guilt.

Generally, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure under Section 21 is required.
However, RA 6165 provides its exemption. For what is of the utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items that will
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, it
apples only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses. and thereafter
explained the cited justifiable grounds, and when the prosecution established that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. The
prosecution, thus, loses the benefit of invoking the presumption of regularity and bears
the burden of proving with moral certainty that the illegal drug presented in court is the
same drug that was confiscated from the accused during his arrest.

In the present case, the identity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug in this
case were preserved because Sl Oliveros marked the seized items at the nearest police
station, thereby ensuring that even though they were turned over from one hand to
another, the drugs presented and identified in court were the same items confiscated
from Mitch. The marking at the NBI office was excused considering that the pace of
arrest was relatively near the office, and that it was impractical to mark the confiscated
items inside a restaurant with a lot of people. The exemption provided by RA 6165 was
met Thus. the items confiscated are admissible.

15. People v. Galicia, G. R. No. 218402

PEOPLE OF THE PHLIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs. RAMILGALICIA Y CHAVEZ, accused-appellant.
G.R. No. 218402 | 14 February 2018
Dangerous Drugs Act
Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.

DOCTRINE:
To convict an accused under this section, the prosecution must show that the place he is
maintaining is a den, dive, or resort where dangerous drug is used or sold in any form. Hence,
two things must be established, thus:
(a) that the place is a den — a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor
and essential [chemical] is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed,
sold, or used in any form;
(b) that the accused maintains the said place.
Hence, it is not enough that the dangerous drug or drug paraphernalia were found in the
place. More than a finding that dangerous drug is being used thereat, there must also be a
clear showing that the accused is the maintainer or operator or the owner of the place where
the dangerous drug is used or sold.
It is clear from the above that the Section 15 does not apply when a person charged with
violation of Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, is also found to have
possession of such quantity of drugs provided under Section 11 of the same law.
FACTS:
 Appellant was charged with violation of Sections 6, 11, 12, and 15, Article II of RA
9165. Apellant pleaded not guilty. Joint trial on the merits followed
Prosecution:
o Tugade, camera man of Mission X received an anonymous call regarding a
shabu tiangge inside the Mapayapa compound and he verified the tip by
bringing a camera in the compound where he conducted undercover
surveillance and filmed the drug-related activities he witnessed inside the said
compound Tugade reported to Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force
(AIDSOTF)

o P/Insp. Fajardo, Jr. was instructed to conduct further surveillance and he

assigned PO2 Nepomuceno to accompany Tugade inside the compound to take
another video of the compound and to conduct a test-buy. They did this for 2
days and submitted specimen to PNP Crime Lab and specimen was positive for
shabu

o Fajardo, Jr. reported to Supt. Acierto who made his own report to Gen. Ele.
Gen. Ele verified and ordered an aerial and ground surveillance of the
compound. Further test-buys were again conducted in the area which confimed
the report Fajardo applied for Search Warrant which was granted

o They conducted a raid with 200 men from diff forces joined by media and reps
from DSWD. More than 300 persons were arrested in the raid, 212 of whom
were charged in court.

o Apellant was one of those arrested and charged. Apellant was found inside the
shanty designated as Target No. 8, together with his pregnant wife. Appellant
attempted to flee. Team found appellant's driver's license inside a wallet found
in the sala and they noticed that the appellant had a picture of himself inside the
house although the same was not seized since it was not listed in the search
warrant. When interviewed by the team, appellant admitted that he was the
owner of Target No. 8 although this admission was made without the presence
of counsel. Team was able to find and seize from the appellant plastic sachets
containing crystalline substances, weighing scale, cellphone, assorted lighters,
wallet containing dollars and a few coins, aluminum foil, and assorted cutters
and scissors. The seized items were marked and inventoried.

 Defense: He was on his way with his pregnant wife to a hospital for a check-up. They
were about to board a tricyde when men in uniform who looked like soldiers stopped
them and ordered them to go inside the Mapayapa Compound. Inside the compound,
appellant was ordered to join a group of men who were arrested and were lying face
 down on the ground. His wife was brought to an area inside the compound where she
joined several other females
 RTC: appellant guilty- Section 6, R.A. 9165 (maintenance of a den); Section 11 of R.A.
9165 (possession of dangerous drugs); Section 12, of R.A. 9165 (possession of drug
paraphernalia); Section 15 of R.A. 9165 (use of dangerous drugs)
 CA: affirmed RTC
ISSUE:
Whether appellant is guilty of maintenance of a drug den, illegal possession of dangerous
drugs and drug paraphernalia, and use of dangerous drugs
RULING:
A. Section 6 – Maintenance of Drug Den – No
To convict an accused under this section, the prosecution must show that the place he is
maintaining is a den, dive, or resort where dangerous drug is used or sold in any form.
Hence, two things must be established, thus:
(a) that the place is a den — a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor
and essential [chemical] is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed,
sold, or used in any form;
(b) that the accused maintains the said place.
Hence, it is not enough that the dangerous drug or drug paraphernalia were found in the
place. More than a finding that dangerous drug is being used thereat, there must also be a
clear showing that the accused is the maintainer or operator or the owner of the place where
the dangerous drug is used or sold.
After scouring through the records of the case, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to
clearly establish that the appellant was guilty of violation of maintenance of a drug den. From
the testimonies of the arresting officers, it is clear that the prosecution failed to establish that
the shanty where appellant was found was a place where dangerous drugs were sold or used.
The prosecution's witnesses merely testified that when they entered Target No. 8, they found
drug paraphernalia inside the shanty and sachets of crystalline substance in the person of the
appellant. The prosecution failed to allege and prove an essential element of the offense that
dangerous drugs were being sold or used inside the shanty located at Target No. 8. What was
clear was that appelant was caught in possession of shabu and drug paraphernalia. Apellants
driver's license and picture only bolster the allegation of appellant's ownership or occupation
of the shanty. It did not establish the fact that the shanty was a drug den. Second and more
importantly, these items were not offered in evidence and were not part of the records of the
case.
B-C Section 11 (Possession) and 15 (Use) – YES; Absorbed
It is clear from the above that the Section 15 does not apply when a person charged with
violation of Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, is also found to have
possession of such quantity of drugs provided under Section 11 of the same law. This means
that appellant may not be charged separately of violation of Section 11 on illegal possession
of dangerous drugs and of Section 15 on use of dangerous drug since it is clear from the
above that the provisions of Section 11 shall apply. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs
absorbs the use of dangerous drugs. This is especially true in this case since appellant was
not caught in the act of using drugs. Instead, he was caught in the act of possessing drugs
and drug paraphernalia. For this reason, the Court dismisses Criminal Case No. 14823-D
against appellant on use of dangerous drugs as the same is absorbed by Section 11 on
illegal possession of dangerous drugs
D. Possession of Drugs and Drug Paraphernalia - YES
SPO2 Agbalog testified that he con2scated the eight sachets of shabu from the appellant
whom he identified in open court.
The Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently established appelants possession of drugs
and drug paraphernalia. Both PO2 Beascan and SPO3 Agbalog categorically declared that
they found the drugs and the drug paraphernalia in the possession of the appellant during the
course of the implementation of the search warrant
With regard to the alleged failure of the police officers to comply with the procedure required
in the seizure of drugs, the records show that the prosecution was able to establish an
unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs — from the seizure and con2scation of the
shabu up to the= delivery of the same to the crime laboratory and presentation in Court
The failure of the prosecution to present the forensic chemist to testify on how the seized
items were handled and taken into custody is not fatal to the admissbility of the seized drugs
and its paraphernalia. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
WHEREFORE, the March 22, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- G.R. CR H.C. No.
046 37 is AF FIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
1. In Criminal Case No. 14821-D for violation of Section 6, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165,
appellant Ramil Galicia y Chavez is ACQUITTED for insufficiency of evidence
2. Criminal se No. 14823-D for violation of Section of Section 15, Artide II, Republic Act No.
9165 is DISMISSED

16. David v. People, G.R. No. 181861

Raul David v. People of the Philippines October 17, 2011, G.R. No. 181861
Peralta, J.:
Single offense of possession of dangerous drugs if accused was caught in possession
of different kinds of dangerous drugs in a single occasion

FACTS:
On June 29, 2003 at around 1PM the Intelligence Operative of Concepcion Police
Station, Concepcion, Tarlac descended upon L. Cortez St., Brgy. San Jose,
Concepcion, Tarlac to conduct a search with a warrant upon the house of Raul David
accompanied by Brgy. Captain Antonio Cannono and found six sachets of marijuana
and three plastic sachets of a substance identified as methamphetamine HCL on top of
a locked aparador. At the time, the appellant was two meters away in the sala.
Photographs of seized items were taken and inventoried and signed by Brgy. Captain
Cannono. Appellant was then charged with violation of Section 11, Art. II of RA 9165 for
illegally possessing 3.865 grams of marijuana and 0.327 grams of methamphetamine
HCL.
RTC’s Ruling: The RTC Branch 66, Capas, Tarlac sentenced the accused to
imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of
PHP 300,000.
CA’s Ruling: On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified
penalty to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum
and a fine of PHP 300,000 for the illegal possession of marijuana and imprisonment of
12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000 for
illegal possession of shabu.
ISSUE:
WON the CA err in modifying the decision of the RTC which found the accused guilty of
a single charge of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165?
HELD: YES. In the present case, petitioner was charged under two Informations, one
for illegal possession of dried marijuana leaves and the other for illegal possession
sachets containing shabu. Under Section 11 of R.A. 9165, the corresponding penalty for
each charge, based on the weight of the dangerous drugs confiscated, is imprisonment
for twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum,
and a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00). Absent any clear
interpretation as to the application of the penalties in cases such as the present one, the
Court shall construe it in favor of the petitioner for the subject provision is penal in
nature. It is a well-known rule of legal hermeneutics that penal or criminal laws are
strictly construed against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. Thus, an
accused may only be convicted of a single offense of possession of dangerous drugs if
he or she was caught in possession of different kinds of dangerous drugs in a single
occasion. If convicted, the higher penalty shall be imposed, which is still lighter if the
accused is convicted of two (2) offenses having two (2) separate penalties. This
interpretation is more in keeping with the intention of the legislators as well as more
favorable to the accused. Thus, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are
affirmed with the modification that the penalty of imprisonment for Twelve (12) years
and one (1) day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and a fine of Three
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) be imposed.

17. Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 185460

The presumption of regularity of official acts does not apply when police officers have
failed to comply with the standard of procedure set by law in a way that compromises
the integrity and evidentiary value of the thing seized. In such case, the indispensable
element of corpus delicti would not be proven. [Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 185460
(2012)]

18. People v. Chan Liu, G.R. No. 189272

People of the Philippines-Petitioners

CHI CHAN LIU a.k.a. CHAN QUE and LAO CHUNG a.k.a. LEOFE SENGLAO
Respondents
GR No. 189272 Jan. 21 2015
Ponente: Peralta.J.

FACTS
Case timeline for better appreciation:
1. Dec. 3, 1998- SPO2 Lazaro Paglicawan and SPO3 Isagani Yuzon received a radio
message from Barangay Captain of Ambil Island, Looc, Oriental Mindoro saying that
there is a suspicious looking boat somewhere w/in the vicinity of the island and they
responded by heading towards the location and spotted 2 boats anchored side by side,
one of which resembled a fishing boat and the other, a speedboat.
2. They noticed one (1) person onboard the fishing boat and two (2) onboard the speed
boat who were transferring cargo from the former to the latter. As they moved closer to
the area, the fishing boat hurriedly sped away but due to the strong waves the officers
were only able to reach the speedboat, w/c had some engine problems, and found
Respondents with 45 transparent plastic bags(weighing 1kilo each) containing a white,
crystalline substance which they later found out and tested to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride (Shabu). In the course of the arrest, the officers asked the respondents
for their identification papers but respondents failed to do so. The officers directed
respondents to transfer to their service boat and thereafter towed respondent's speed
boat to the shore behind the Municipal Hall of Looc, Occidental, Mindoro. Respondents
repeatedly offered them "big, big amount of money" which they ignored.
3. Since the respondents do not know how to speak in English the officers had to get an
interpreter to tell them (respondents) of their Miranda rights.
-An information was filed against the respondents for violation of the Dangerous Drug
Act. The respondents plead not guilty.
4. Trial Court found respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the CA affirmed in
toto the decision of the Trial Court.

Petitioner/Respondents' contention:
-They had witnesses which said that the bags of shabu was not recovered from the
speed boat but rather from the house of the Barangay captain.
-They allege a violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and
seizures. Due to the absence of probable cause, their warrantless arrest and
consequent search and seizure on their persons and possession is unjustified and
hence, the confiscated bags of regulated drugs therefrom are inadmissible against
them.

ISSUE/S
I. Whether there was a violation of respondents' constitutional right on unreasonable
search and if the warrantless arrest and search and seizure of their persons and
possession was unjustified so as to make the confiscated bags inadmissible as
evidence against them? NO
RATIO
- In this case, appellants were actually committing a crime and were caught by the
apprehending officers in flagrante delicto As previously stated, the records reveal that
on the date of their arrest, the apprehending officers, while acting upon a report from the
Barangay Captain, spotted appellants transferring cargo from one boat to another.
However, one of the boats hastily sped away when they drew closer to the appellants,
naturally arousing the suspicion of the officers. Soon after, the police officers found
them with the illegal drugs plainly exposed to the view of the officers. When they
requested appellants to show proper documentation as to their identity as well as their
purpose for being there, appellants refused to show them anything much less respond
to any of their questions. In fact, when the officers were transporting appellants and the
illegal drugs to the shore, the appellant Chi Chan Liu even repeatedly offered the
arresting officers "big, big amount of money." Hence, the circumstances prior to and
surrounding the arrest of appellants clearly show that they were arrested when they
were actually committing a crime within the view of the arresting officers, who had
reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed.
In addition, this Court does not find the consequent warrantless search and seizure
conducted on appellants unreasonable in view of the fact that the bags containing the
regulated drugs were in plain view of the arresting officers, one of the judicially
recognized exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a search warrant.

Summary:
-Arrest was valid because it was done in flagrante delicto which falls under Sec5 rule
113
-Search and seizure of plastic bags containing shabu was valid due to the plain view
doctrine.
RULING
WHEREFORE premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED The Decision dated
January 9, 2009 and Resolution dated April 24, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00657 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellants herein
are found GUILTY of the crime of illegal possession of regulated drugs.

Notes
Plain View Doctrine -objects falling in the plain view of an officer, who has a right to be
in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence.45 It applies when the following requisites concur:
(a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an
intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
(b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
(c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence
of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.
The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a
position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful
intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused.
The object must be open to eye and hand, and its discovery inadvertent.
Rule 113, Sec 5
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer of a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. This Court has ruled that for an arrest
to fall under the above exception, two (2) elements must be present: (1) the person to
be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

19. People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 175989

20.  People v. Fabro, G.R. No. 114261

PEOPLE vs. FABRO, GR 114261, Feb 10, 2000
FACTS:
Appellant Fabro together with her common-law husband Donald Pilay and Irene Martin,
was charged with the crime of "violation of Section 21 (b) Art. IV, in relation to Section 4,
Art. II of Republic Act No. 6425.
They conspired and sold/delivered to PO2 APDUHAN, who acted as poseur-buyer, one
(1) kilo of dried marijuana leaves. Two concerned individuals, Gloria and Emma Borce,
reported to Chief Inspector Evasco that a in Baguio City, was engaged in selling
marijuana. They added that sales usually took place between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m.
Acting on that report, Chief Inspector Evasco organized two teams to conduct a buy-
bust operation. Senior Inspector Mabanag was to be the overall team leader with Batag
as his assistant. SPO2 Ellonito Apduhan was designated poseur-buyer in the operation.
After briefing the group, Chief Inspector Evasco gave P600.00 as purchase money to
Apduhan. The amount consisted of six P100-bills with their serial numbers duly listed
down.
As Apduhan, Gloria and Emma drew near Pilay’s residence, appellant met them.
Donald Pilay who appeared drunk was inside the house by the main door. Gloria and
Emma introduced Apduhan to appellant as a stranger in the place who wanted to buy
marijuana. Appellant told them that a kilo would cost them P700.00 but she agreed to
Apduhan’s price of P600.00. After Apduhan had ordered a kilo of the contraband,
appellant told them to wait a while. Appellant then went to a house just behind her own.
After a few minutes, she returned in the company of another woman who was later
identified as Irene Martin. Appellant handed the stuff to Apduhan. Her companion, Irene
Martin, demanded payment therefor. Apduhan gave her the P600.00. After ascertaining
that it was a brick of marijuana, he made the pre-arranged signal of lighting his
cigarette. Immediately, the back-up team rushed towards their direction.
However, before the team could reach them, Irene Martin ran away. Apduhan held
appellant so that she could not escape. Donald Pilay was also arrested.
ISSUE:
Whether there is conspiracy in the commission of the crime
RULING:
YES. Appellant’s contention that Irene Martin was the real culprit being the source of the
contraband does not in any way absolve her of the crime of selling marijuana. While it is
true that it was Irene Martin who took the money, appellant was the one who negotiated
with the poseur-buyers; fetched her co-accused; carried and handed over the marijuana
to Apduhan. The acts of Martin and appellant clearly show a unity of purpose in the
consummation of the sale of marijuana. In other words, between Martin and appellant,
conspiracy in the commission of the crime was indubitably proven by the prosecution.
Section 21 (b) of R.A. 6425 punishes the mere conspiracy to commit the offense of
selling, delivering, distributing and transporting of dangerous drugs. Conspiracy herein
refers to the mere agreement to commit the said acts and not the actual execution
thereof. While the rule is that a mere conspiracy to commit a crime without doing any
overt act is not punishable, the exception is when such is specifically penalized by law,
as in the case of Section 21 of Republic Act 6425. Conspiracy as crime should be
distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability the latter being
applicable to the case at bar.
21.  People v. Nicolas, G.R. 1. 110116

G.R. No. 110116 February 1, 1995

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.NICK NICOLAS y AQUINO AND LYNDON ILAW y PEREZ, accused-appellants.
Ponente: BELLOSILLO, J.:

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/feb1995/gr_110116_1995.html

22.  People v. Badilla, G.R. No. 218578

G.R. No. 218578

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs. ENRICO BRIONES BADILLA, Accused-Appellant.
Ponente: PERALTA, J.:

FACTS:
PO2 Paras received a phone call from a concerned citizen informing him that someone
was indiscriminately firing a gun at BMBA Compound. PO2 Paras and his companions,
responded to the call and reached the target area. There they saw a male person, later
identified as appellant Enrico Briones Badilla, standing along the alley.
Appellant was suspiciously in the act of pulling or drawing something from his pocket;
thus, as a precautionary measure, and thinking that a concealed weapon was inside his
pocket, PO2 Paras immediately introduced himself as a police officer, held appellant's
arm, and asked the latter to bring out his hand from his pocket. It turned out that
appellant was holding a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance. PO2 Paras
confiscated the plastic sachet from appellant, informed him of his constitutional rights,
and arrested him. Appellant and the confiscated plastic sachet were brought to the
Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) Office where
PO2 Paras marked the plastic sachet. Upon laboratory examination, the white
crystalline and urine sample from appellant was found positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride.
The RTC finding herein appellant Enrico Briones Badilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Upon appeal, the Court of
appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the prosecution failed to prove the identity and integrity of the alleged
seized shabu.
HELD:
No. The prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the confiscated drug had not been compromised because it established the crucial link
in the chain of custody of the seized item from the time it was first discovered until it was
brought to the court for examination. The chain of custody rule requires the identification
of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they
were seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. Therefore, in
this case, even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical
inventory and photograph of the seized drug nor mark the same immediately after
seizure, these will not render appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized from him
inadmissible. There is substantial compliance by the police officers as to the required
procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated item. The succession of events
established by evidence and the overall handling of the seized item by the prosecution
witnesses all show that the item seized was the same evidence subsequently identified
and testified to in open court.

23.  People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 191061

G.R. No. 191061 February 9, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs. ROSELLE SANTIAGO y PABALINAS, Appellant.
Ponente: ABAD, J.:

FACTS:
After a buy-bust operation, police officer Esguerra turned over Santiago and the seized
sachet to the investigator. When the contents of the first and second sachets (with “@
Tisay” and “RPS” markings) were examined, these were confirmed to be shabu. A
confirmatory test also found Santiago positive for the use of shabu.
RTC’s Ruling: RTC found Santiago guilty of sale and use of dangerous drugs, as
affirmed by CA.
ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the seized item
and its preservation from possible tampering?
RULING:
NO. Although the prosecution established through Esguerra the acts constituting the
crime charged in the drug-pushing case, it failed to provide proper identity of the
allegedly prohibited substance that the police seized from Santiago. Esguerra testified
that he seized a heat-sealed sachet of white substance from Santiago and marked the
sachet with "RPS" right in her presence. He claimed that he then immediately submitted
the specimen to the police crime laboratory for examination. But the request for
laboratory exam reveals that it was not Esguerra who delivered the specimen to the
crime laboratory. It appears that Esguerra gave it to a certain SPO3 Puno who in turn
forwarded it to a certain PO2 Santos. No testimony covers the movement of the
specimen among these other persons.
Consequently, the prosecution was unable to establish the chain of custody of the
seized item and its preservation from possible tampering. What is more, the prosecution
failed to account for the whereabouts of the seized specimen after the crime laboratory
conducted its tests. This omission is fatal since the chain of custody should be
established from the time the seized drugs were confiscated and eventually marked
until the same is presented during trial.

24.  People vs. Sullano, G.R. No. 228373

G.R. No. 228373, March 12, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
v. PO1 JOHNNY K. SULLANO, Respondent.
Ponente: GESMUNDO, J.:

FACTS:
Pursuant to a random drug and confirmatory test, PO1 Johnny K. Sullano (“PO1
Sullano”) was charged for violation of Sec. 15 of R.A. No. 9165. After the presentation
of prosecution’s evidence, PO1 Sullano filed its demurrer to evidence, which was
granted.
In said demurrer, PO1 Sullano argued that it was never asserted that respondent was
apprehended or arrested or actually caught using any dangerous drug. In questing the
granting of the said demurrer, petitioner contends that that a narrow interpretation of
Section 15 will result in an absurd situation where a person found to be positive for use
of dangerous drugs may not be penalized for not being arrested or apprehended.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the violation of Sec. 15 of R.A. No. 9165 only pertains to those arrested
or apprehended.
HELD:
Yes. The cardinal rule in statutory construction is the plain-meaning rule. Verba legis
non est recendendum - "from the words of a statute there should be no departure."
When the statute is clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, the words should be given its
literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. Especially for penal
provisions, it is not enough to say that the legislature intended to make a certain act an
offense, the legislature must use words which in some way express that intent.
Moreover, the elementary rule in statutory construction that the express mention of one
person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others, also known as expressio unius
est exclusion alterius, is relevant and applicable. This rule applies where the very terms
of the statute expressly limit it to certain matters; thus it may not, by interpretation or
construction, be extended to others. In the provision in question, Congress itself
confined and restricted the liability arising from use of dangerous drugs to those who
were apprehended or arrested if charged with a violation of Section 15. Also, criminal
law is rooted in the concept that there is no crime unless a law specifically calls for its
punishment. Nullum crimen poena sine lege. Another basic criminal law precept
important to remember here is in dubiis reus est absolvendus - all doubts should be
resolved in favor of the accused. Any criminal law showing ambiguity will always be
construed strictly against the state and in favor of the accused.

25.  People vs. Luna,G.R. No. 219164

G.R. No. 219164
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs. RICHAEL LUNA y TORSILINO, Accused-Appellant
Ponente: CAGUIOA, J.:

FACTS:

Criminal Case No. 2008-3529-D-MK

On April 14, 2008 accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to
SPO1 Ramiel Soriano, posing as a buyer, a small plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram
of white crystalline substance valued at Php. 300.00 which gave positive result to the
tests for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in
violation of the above cited law. CONTRARY TO LAW.10

Criminal Case No. 2008-3530-D-MK

That on or about the 14th day of April 2008, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused, without being authorized by law
to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, direct custody and control one (1)
plastic sachets containing 0.01 gram of white crystalline substance which gave positive
result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of
the above-cited law.

Defense: accused-appellant Luna denied all charges against him. He claimed that in
the afternoon of April 14, 2008, while he was at his home watching television with his
two (2) sons, aged four (4) and three (3) years old, respectively, two (2) men in civilian
clothes suddenly barged into his house and introduced themselves as police
officers.36 One of them asked if he was "Bunso," to which he answered in the
affirmative.37 Meanwhile, the other police officer went inside his room and stayed there
for about ten (10) minutes.38 Later, three (3) more men entered his home who then
brought him out of the house.39 Accused-appellant Luna was then made to board a car
and was brought to the police headquarters.40

Upon their arrival, one of the police officers, whom accused-appellant Luna identified as
SPO1 Soriano, placed three (3) One Hundred Peso (₱100.00) bills in front of accused-
appellant Luna together with two (2) plastic sachets. 41 He was then ordered to hold the
plastic sachets and was photographed by the police officers while doing so. 42

Banico, on the other hand, testified that in the afternoon of April 14, 2008, she was
resting outside her house at Pipino Street, Barangay Tumana, the same street where
the house of accused-appellant Luna was located. 43 From her house, she then saw a
person on board a motorcycle passing by the residence of accused-appellant Luna,
which was tailed by a car boarded by several men. 44 The rider of the motorcycle then
asked her where was the residence of a certain "Bunso."45 Thereafter, the men in the
car entered the house of accused-appellant Luna and began searching around the
place. 46 Banico also entered the house when she heard the children crying. 47 Upon
entering, she was asked by one of the men, "Mrs, nasaan ang basura? ," but she did
not understand what they were referring to. 48 After about half an hour, when the men
were not able to find anything, they went out of the house together with accused-
appellant Luna, who was then made to board their car. 49 Banico later learned that
accused-appellant Luna was brought to the office of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operation Task Force.
RTC’s Ruling: The RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish the elements
necessary for the separate crimes of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

 the accused RICHAEL LUNA y TORSILINO @ BUNSO guilty beyond reasonable

doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the following: (1) In Criminal Case No.
2008-3529-D to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00) and, (2) In Criminal Case No.
2008-3530-D accused is hereby sentenced to suffer x x x an indeterminate
prison term ranging from twelve (12) years, as minimum, to seventeen (17)
years as maximum and to pay a fine of ₱300,000.00[.]

CA’s Ruling: the CA agreed with the RTC's finding that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the corpus delicti were properly preserved by the police officers.

WON Strict compliance with the requirements in Section 21 of RA 9165 is mandatory

Yes. As a rule, strict compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory.

However, following the IRR of RA 9165, the courts may allow a deviation from these
requirements if the following requisites are availing: (1) the existence of "justifiable
grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
team.65 If these two elements concur, the seizure and custody over the confiscated
items shall not be rendered void and invalid.

In this case, the police officers failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under
Section 21 of RA 9165. After a judicious scrutiny of the records of this case, the Court
finds that the police officers reneged on their duty to comply with the requirements on
the seizure, initial custody, and handling of the seized items pursuant to Section 21.
Such lapses, to the mind of the Court, cast serious doubt on the identity and integrity of
the corpus delicti and, consequently, reasonable doubt on the guilt of accused-appellant
Luna.

On the three-witness requirement

To recall, the language of the first paragraph of Section 21 is clear: the apprehending
team is duty-bound to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph
the same "immediately after seizure and confiscation x x x in the presence of the
accused x x x, a representative from the media and the [DOJ], and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof."70

The plain import of the phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that
the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs must be performed
immediately at the place of apprehension.71 And, in case this is not practicable, then
the inventory and photographing may be done as soon as the apprehending team
reaches the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team.
Necessarily, this could only mean that the three (3) witnesses should already be
physically present at the time of apprehension - a requirement that can easily be
complied with by the buy-bust team, considering that buy-bust operations, by their very
nature, entail meticulous planning and coordination.

In other words, in case of warrantless seizures, while the physical inventory and
photographing is allowed to be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable," this
does not dispense with the requirement of having the DOJ or media representative and
an elected public official to be physically present at the time of apprehension.

The reason for this is dictated by simple logic: these witnesses are presumed to be
disinterested third parties insofar as the buy-bust operation is concerned. Hence, it is at
the time of arrest - or at the time of the drugs' "seizure and confiscation" - that the
insulating presence of the witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the
time of seizure and confiscation that would foreclose the pernicious practice of
planting of evidence. Without the actual presence of the representative from the media
and the DOJ, and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the
confiscated drugs, the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the corpus
delicti that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425, otherwise
known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," could again be resurrected. 72

FINAL NOTE: The law, being a creature of justice, is blind towards both the guilty and
the innocent. The Court, as justice incarnate, must then be relentless in exacting the
standards laid down by our laws - in fact, the Court can do no less. For when the
fundamental rights of life and liberty are already hanging in the balance, it is the Court
that must, at the risk of letting the guilty go unpunished, remain unforgiving in its calling.
And if the guilty does go unpunished, then that is on the police and the prosecution -
that is for them to explain to the People.

26.  People vs. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677

Principles:
When the quantity of the confiscated substance is miniscule, the requirements of
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, must be strictly complied with.
The prosecution's failure to present the police officer who acted as the poseur-buyer in
the buy-bust operation, which allegedly involved 0.03 grams of shabu, coupled with the
improbability that the two (2) apprehending police officers witnessed the transaction at
night time, engenders reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. The prosecution's
failure to sufficiently establish the chain of custody in accordance with the law further
amplifies the doubt on accused's guilt.
FACTS:
A buy-bust team was formed, composed of SPO3 Raul Magdadaro (SPO3 Magdadaro)
as team leader, PO1 Roy Misa (PO1 Misa) as poseur-buyer, and SPO1 Paller as back-
up. SPO1 Paller called the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for coordination on the
buy-bust operation. SPO1 Paller, SPO3 Magdadaro, and PO1 Misa held a briefing
before jump-off. A buy-bust money of P100.00, bearing the serial no. VT129780, was
handed to PO1 Misa.
An informant helped them locate the house of accused-appellant,[14] Saragena, alias
"Tatay." The police officers parked three (3) comers away from accused-appellant's
house, poseur-buyer, PO1 Misa walked towards accused-appellant's house.
SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro trailed behind him. Accused-appellant's house was
located at the back of a stage. As PO1 Misa drew closer to the target site, SPO1 Paller
and SPO3 Magdadaro hid themselves at the side of the stages beside the basketball
court. The distance between the designated poseur-buyer and the two (2) back-up
officers were about five (5) to eight (8) meters.
PO1 Misa handed the P100.00 bill as payment, for which he received a "pack of white
crystalline substance." SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro then rushed to the scene[26]
and introduced themselves as police officers.[27] SPO1 Paller conducted a body search
on accused-appellant and recovered the buy-bust money. Accused-appellant was
brought to the police station.
PO1 Misa retained custody of the plastic pack, while SPO1 Paller took the buy-bust
money from accused-appellant. At the police station, PO1 Misa turned over the plastic
pack to their team leader, SPO3 Magdadaro, who then marked it with the letters "AS."
The incident was logged in the police blotter
SPO3 Magdadaro wrote a letter-request for laboratory examination of the seized and
marked plastic pack, signed by Chief Police Superintendent Armando Macolbacol
Radoc. PO1 Misa, accompanied by SPO1 Paller, delivered SPO3 Magdadaro's letter-
request and the seized plastic pack to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory
in Cebu City. A certain PO2 Roma received the letter-request and the specimen from
PO1 Misa and then delivered these items to P/S Insp. Pinky Sayson-Acog (P/S Insp.
Acog), a forensic chemist.
On June 23, 2005, P/S Insp. Acog found the plastic pack marked as "AS" to be positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
marked the specimen as "D-890-05," and put her initials, "PSA."... according to the
defense, accused-appellant was at home when three (3) armed police officers kicked
the door of his house. He recognized PO1 Misa, SPO1 Palter, and SPO3 Magdadaro as
they frequented illegal cockfights and would take turns asking for the defeated fighting
cock.
One (1) of them searched his pockets but found nothing. They also searched his house
Despite the lack of contraband found, accused-appellant was sent to the Mabolo Police
Station. He inquired why he was being arrested. The buy-bust team told him that they
were able to buy shabu from him. Denying this accusation, accused-appellant asserted
that they planted the evidence.
Regional Trial Court convicted
The Court of Appeals found that the police officers failed to comply with the compulsory
procedure on the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs under Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 or the chain of custody rule. Nevertheless, it justified the noncompliance
by applying the exception in the same provision.
ISSUES:
whether or not accused-appellant Abundio Mamolo Saragena is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. Subsumed in this
issue is the matter of whether or not the law enforcement officers substantially complied
with the chain of custody rule.
RULING:
No. This Court reverses his conviction and acquits him of the sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
There is great possibility of abuse in drug cases, especially those involving miniscule
amounts. This Court has recognized that buy-bust operations could be initiated based
on dubious claims of shady persons, or that small amounts of illicit drugs could be
planted as evidence on innocent individuals, in view of the secrecy surrounding drug
deals in general.
Therefore, courts must subject "the prosecution evidence through the crucible of a
severe testing . . . [T]he presumption of innocence requires them to take a more than
casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the
accused."
More importantly, they must be on their guard in trying drug cases; otherwise, they risk
meting severe penalties to innocent persons.
there is reasonable doubt that the sale of shabu took place.
To successfully convict an accused under this provision, the prosecution must establish
the identities of the buyer and the seller, the item sold, and the consideration given for it.
There must be an actual sale, consummated through delivery and payment. Finally, the
corpus delicti must be presented in court as evidence.
It is unclear how SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro allegedly witnessed the purported
sale. The alleged illegal drug was of very small quantity, It weighed only 0.03 grams,[71]
approximately as light as a grain of rice... or an ant.
The alleged transaction between PO1 Misa and accused-appellant happened five (5) to
eight (8) meters away from SPO3 Magdadaro.
While PO1 Misa was allegedly buying shabu from accused-appellant, SPO1 Paller and
SPO3 Magdadaro were hiding at the side of the stage. Accused-appellant's house was
at the back of this stage where they hid.[75] Likewise, it was already 7:00 p.m. and the
night time would have impaired their vision.
PO1 Misa, the only person who could attest to the commission of the crime, was not
presented in court. The poseur-buyer "had personal knowledge of the transaction since
he conducted the actual transaction." His testimony is crucial in establishing the alleged
facts and circumstances surrounding the purported sale.
The failure to present the poseur-buyer casts doubt on the charge that an illegal sale of
drugs took place. SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro's location, the nightfall, and the
miniseule amount of the alleged illegal drug further call into question prosecution's claim
that SPO1 Paller and SPO3 Magdadaro witnessed the scene. Even if there was a sale,
the corpus delicti was not proven as the chain of custody was defective.
The corpus delicti is the body of the crime that would establish that a crime was
committed.[79] In cases involving the sale of drugs, the corpus delicti is the confiscated
illicit drug itself,[80] the integrity of which must be preserved.
Accused-appellant argues that the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the shabu
allegedly recovered from him violated the chain of custody rule.[82] His contention is
meritorious. The police officers' lapses are numerous and unjustified that there are
serious grounds to doubt the preservation of the integrity of the corpus delicti.
There was no showing that accused-appellant signed a receipt of the inventory of the
pack of shabu, that it was marked in his presence, that photographs were taken, or that
he was made to sign a confiscation receipt relating to the seized pack of shabu.
This case arose from a buy-bust operation. While a buy-bust operation can indeed
enable authorities to uncover illicit transactions otherwise kept under wraps, this Court
has recognized that such an operation poses a significant drawback—that is, "[i]t is
susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for
extortion."[87]To avert such possibility, the prosecution must establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the dangerous drug offered during trial was the same that was
bought during the buy-bust operation.[88] The chain of custody rule under Republic Act
No. 9165 fulfills this rigorous requirement.
This Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the prosecution failed to follow the
chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
further clarified by Section 1(A) of the Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended... require the
apprehending team to mark, inventory, and photograph the evidence in the following
manner:
First, the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer must place his or her initials and
signature on the seized item.[92] Here, PO1 Misa did not place his initials "RM" on the
confiscated pack; rather, it was SPO3 Magdadaro who wrote "AS" on it,[93] presumably
standing for accused-appellant's initials for Abundio Saragena, instead of the police
officer's initials. It was also not shown whether PO1 Misa or SPO3 Magdadaro signed
the plastic pack.
Second, in a warrantless search as in this case, the marking of the drug must be done
in the presence of the accused-appellant and at the earliest possible opportunity.[95]
The earliest possible opportunity to mark the evidence is immediately at the place
where it was seized, if practicable,[96] to avoid the risk that the seized item might be
altered while in transit.
Here, the records do not show why the officers had to wait to arrive at the police station
before marking the seized plastic pack. The earliest available opportunity to mark it was
in accused-appellant's house. Likewise, there is no showing that the seized item was
marked in the presence of accused-appellant. All that the prosecution established was
that, while at the police station, PO1 Misa turned over the plastic pack to SPO3
Magdadaro, who marked it with the letters "AS.
in People v. Dahil, this Court cannot determine "how the unmarked drugs were
handled," making it possible for the seized item to have been altered
Third, the physical inventory and photograph of the seized item must be done in the
presence of (a) the accused, the accused's representative, or the accused's counsel; (b)
any elected public official; and (c) a representative of the Department of Justice's
National Prosecution Service or a media practitioner. These three (3) persons required
by law should sign the copies of the inventory of the seized item and be given a copy of
the certificate of inventory.[104] This insulates the buy-bust operation "from any taint of
illegitimacy or irregularity."
Here, it was not shown that the buy-bust team conducted a physical inventory or took
photographs of the contraband after its confiscation. Moreover, none of the witnesses
testified that (a) accused-appellant, his representative or counsel, (b) any elected
official, and (c) a representative from the media or from the National Prosecution
Service signed a confiscation receipt.
Section 1(A.1.6) of the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations states
that "[a] representative of the Nfational] Pjrosecution] S[ervice] is anyone from its
employees, while the media representative is any media practitioner. The elected public
official is any incumbent public official regardless of the place where he/she is elected."
The presence of these three (3) persons required by law can be ensured in a planned
operation such as a buy-bust operation
Yet, they failed to ensure that a National Prosecution Office representative, or if
unavailable, any media practitioner, would be present during the seizure of shabu. They
also failed to ensure that any incumbent public official such as a barangay captain or
kagawad would be there at the same time.
Finally, the apprehending team shall "document the chain of custody each time a
specimen is handled, transferred or presented in court until its disposal, and every
individual in the chain of custody shall be identified following the laboratory control and
chain of custody form."
People v. Kamad stated that the prosecution must prove four (4) links in the chain of
custody of evidence. Read with the Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and
Regulations, Kamad provided for the following steps to establish the links necessary for
a chain of custody of the specimen seized from the accused:First, the apprehending
officer seizes and then marks the dangerous drug taken from the accused. The chain of
custody of evidence must show the time and place that the seized item is marked and
the names of the officers who marked it. Second, the apprehending officer turns over
the seized dangerous drug to the investigating officer. The chain of custody of evidence
must establish the names of officers who inventoried, photographed, and/or sealed the
seized item. Third, the investigating officer turns over the seized dangerous drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination. The chain of custody of evidence must
show the names of officers who had custody and received the evidence from one officer
to another within the chain. Fourth, the forensic chemist turns over and submits the
marked confiscated dangerous drug to the court. Similarly, the chain of custody of
evidence must show the names of officers who had custody and received the evidence
from one officer to another within the chain.
"[E]ach and every link in the custody must be accounted for" until the seized item is
presented before the court. In this case, there are gaps in the linkages in the chain of
custody. Some key witnesses were absent during trial.
PO1 Misa, the poseur-buyer, was not presented in court. As a result, prosecution has
not established how the purported transaction with accused-appellant occurred.
PO1 Misa also delivered the drug specimen to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory for examination. During the post-seizure custody and handling of the
dangerous drug, a certain PO2 Roma received the specimen from PO1 Misa before
delivering it to P/S Insp. Acog. However, the prosecution failed to present the testimony
of P02 Roma, who was also part of the chain of custody.
The chain of custody rule must be strictly complied with. Mallillin v. People explained
that strict compliance goes into the nature of the dangerous drug itself, this being the
subject of prosecution under Republic Act No. 9165.
People v. Casacop held that the buy-bust team "should have been more meticulous in
complying with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 to preserve the integrity of the
seized shabu."
A proviso in the old Section 21 (a) of Republic Act No. 9165 Implementing Rules and
Regulations states that the failure to comply with the chain of custody rule may be
excused in exceptional circumstances, provided that (a) there are justifiable grounds for
it, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly
preserved:
In People v. Jafaar, this Court held that the exception under then Section 21 (a) of
Republic Act No. 9165 Implementing Rules and Regulations "will only be triggered by
the existence of a ground that justifies departure from the general rule."
The Chain of Custody Implementing Rules and Regulations require that the
apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state
this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to
preserve the integrity of the seized item.
Here, the prosecution has not given a justifiable ground for applying the exception. All it
has done is to assert a self-serving claim that the integrity of the seized pack has been
preserved despite the numerous procedural lapses it has committed. The fatal errors of
the apprehending team can only lead this Court to seriously doubt the integrity of the
corpus delicti.