G.R. No. 196966: PEOPLE VS.

MAONGCO
Facts: Alvin Carpio was apprehended for illegal possession of dangerous drug (shabu) during the
conduct of special operation. When he was asked about the source of the shabu, he told the
police that it was Michael Maongco. Thereafter, police officers conducted an operation involving
Carpio buying two (2) “bulto” of shabu from Maongco. Thereafter, the police officers went to
the place where Maongco was waiting and was apprehended after the latter showed the one (1)
“bulto” of shabu. Arugay asked where the other “bulto” was, Maongco said that it was in the
possession of Phans Bandali who was waiting in Jollibee, Pantranco Branch. Thereafter, they
went to that place and Maongco told the police officers that Bandali was wearing a blue t-shirt.
Vener Ong, a polic officer, approached Bandali and demanded from the latter the other half of
the drugs ordered. Bandali voluntarily handed over a sachet of shabu. Then, Bandali was
apprised of his violation and of his constitutional rights. The seized shabu was properly
preserved in accoradance with Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165. Maongco
and Bandali, the petitioner, were both charged for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Acto of 2002). The petitioners alleged there was no legitimate
buybust operation because there was no actual sale of dangerous drug in the operation conducted
by police officers. Issue: Whether or not the petitioners may still be held criminally liable under
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 even if there was no legitimate buy-bust operation. Ruling: The
Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. Well-settled in jurisprudence that the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
The same ruling may also be applied to the other acts penalized under Article II, Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 because for the accused to be able to trade, administer, dispense, deliver,
give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit, or transport any dangerous drug, he must
necessarily be in possession of said drugs. Thus, still, the petitioner are held liable.