PEOPLE V.

CASACOP
FACTS:
 A certain Edong was selling shabu in Quezon Street, Barangay San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna,
according to a tip from an informant.
 The Chief of Police of San Pedro Police Station formed a team to conduct surveillance to Ronaldo
Casacop
 After a favorable result, SPO4 Dela Peña prepared a pre-operation report and formed a buy-bust
team, PO1 Signap to act as poseur-buyer and 3 other police officers as back up.
 POl Signap and the informant approached appellant's house and PO1 Signap was introduced to
appellant by the informant as the buyer of shabu.
 He handed the marked money, consisting of three P100.00 bills, to appellant, who took a plastic
sachet from his left pocket and gave it to him.
 PO1 Signap made the pre-arranged signal to call for the backup, approached the appellant and
arrested him
 PO1 Signap searched the appellant and recovered an improvised glass tooter, aluminum foil strip,
cigarette lighter, 2 small heat-sealed transparent sachets and the marked money
 PO1 Signap conducted a physical inventory of the seized items and marked them in appellant's
house.
 Appellant was brought to the police station and, SPO4 Dela Pena prepared a certificate of inventory.
 A request letter was sent to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime laboratory for the
examination of the seized items and thereafter the forensic chemist confirmed the seized items as
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
 The RTC found the Appellant guilty of violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12 of RA 9165
 The matter was appealed to the Court of Appeals but affirmed the decision, hence the appeal to the
Supreme Court

ISSUE:
 Whether or not Chain of Custody of the object evidence was established

RULING:
 The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.
 For the successful prosecution of a case for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be
proven:
o (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and
o (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
 On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must concur:
o (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug;
o (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
o (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

 The elements for illegal sale of shabu were established.

o PO1 Signap, the poseur-buyer positively identified the appellant as the person who sold him
the white crystalline substance, later proven to be shabu and in exchange for this sachet, the
marked money served as payment.
o The delivery of the contraband and the receipt of the seller of the marked money
consummated the buy-bust transaction
 All the elements in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and paraphernalia were
likewise established. Found in appellant's pocket after he was caught in flagrante were two (2) more
plastic sachets containing shabu, an improvised glass tooter containing shabu residue and the rolled
aluminum foil with shabu residue.
o There was no showing that appellant had legal authority to possess the shabu and its
paraphernalia. The fact that this contraband was found in his physical possession shows that
he freely and consciously possessed them.

 The contention of the appellant that the procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs
was not complied with is of no moment.
o It has been proven that appellant brought out a plastic sachet which was found out to be
shabu later on after PO1 Signap showed the marked money, 2 more plastic sachets containing
the same were recovered from him, the apprehending team inventoried the seized drug and
paraphernalia in his presence, SPO4 dela Peña prepared a Certification of Inventory and was
signed, a booking sheet and arrest report was issued to the appellant and a letter request was
 sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for the examination of the plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance.

 The SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED the decision of the court a quo.

PEOPLE V. UTOH LAKIBUL

FACTS:
 In November 1988, NARCOM Agent Tsgt. Dalumpines received an information of a presence of a
drug pusher at Lower Calarian, Zamboanga City, and was instructed by Major Cabayacruz to conduct
a surveillance
 Dalumpines and Dedicatoria, as agents of NARCOM went to the place near a mini-fish market saw
teenagers going to the suspected pusher.
 After being satisfied after 2 days of surveillance, the two informed Major Cabayacruz who then,
decided to conduct a buy-bust operation
 A 3 man team led by Dalumpines, and PO2 Manuel Alarcon as poseur buyer was formed. 2 five peso
bills to serve as marked money were handed to Dalumpines
 The team proceeded near the area, and Dalumpines pointed the pusher to Alarcon, who approached
the suspect and said his desire to buy 10 peso worth of marijuana
 The suspect produced from his pocket 2 newspaper wrapped articles, and when Alarcon was
satisfied that it was marijuana, he gave the suspect the marked money.
 The suspect was arrested after the signal of Alarcon, and the former was brought to the NARCOM
Office, identifying himself as UTOH LAKIBUL
 Laboratory tests were conducted and proved positive that the articles were marijuana
 An information for violation of Section 4, Article II of RA 6425 was filed against LAKIBUL
 He pleaded not guilty to the charge
 According to him, he was only a fish vendor in the small market in the area, and someone called him.
2 persons approached him and told him to go to their office. They said that should he refuse,
something bad will happen to him. It was in the office that marijuana and the money were shown to
him, which he denied knowledge of. According to him, nothing was taken from his pocket or body.
 The Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City gave credence to the prosecution and found him guilty of
the charge
 Hence the appeal by the accused on the decision, contending
o The trial court erred in relying testimony of the witnesses of prosecution instead of weighing
the evidences adduced during the trial

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused (despite the difference in serial
number presented by the prosecution witness)

RULING:
 The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.
 The contention of the accused that the trial court erred in allowing the marking of Exhibit F despite
the serial number of the two five peso bills were different from that presented by the prosecution
witness is untenable.
 In addition, even without the money to buy the marijuana so long as the police officer went through
the motion as a buyer and his offer was accepted by the appellant and the marijuana delivered to
the police officer, the crime was consummated by the delivery of the goods.

 Regarding the issue on credibility, the trial court, being the trier of facts, is in better position to
decide the question on credibility, having seen and heard the witnesses themselves.
 The Supreme Court accords great weight to the findings of the trial court, in giving more credence to
the prosecution’s evidence.
o The government witnesses has been given credence as the court has seen these witnesses
testify and believes in the truthfulness and sincerity in the matter.
o On the other hand, the defense witnesses are long term neighbors of the appellant and his
mother and that the testimonies of these witnesses are piled up with inconsistencies and
 neither did they assigned any ulterior motive to the NARCOM agents as to why they would
arrest him without any reason.
 The fact is, the accused was caught in flagrante selling marijuana during the buy bust operation by
the NARCOM agents.
 The SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED the trial court’s findings.

MALILLIN V. PEOPLE
FACTS:
 On February 4, 2003, a team composed of P/Insp. Catalino Bolanos, with PO3 Roberto Esternon,
SPO1 Pedro Docot, SPO1 Danilo Lasala and SPO2 Romeo Gallinera entered petitioner Junie Mallillin’s
house on the strength of a warrant of search and seizure.
 Junie was suspected of possessing shabu. Present during the search was Junie’s wife Sheila, his
mother Norma, and barangay kagawad Delfin Licup.
 The search yielded 2 plastic packets of shabu and 5 empty packets containing shabu residue.
 Mallillin was thus charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA. No. 9165, (The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
 The trial commenced as follows:
o Bolanos, the raid leader, testified that he was permitted entry into the house by Mallillin after
showing the search warrant. He assigned Esternon and Licup to conduct the search, while
stationing the rest of the team outside to prevent anyone from fleeing. He stated that the
search yielded five empty packets with shabu residue, and two full packets that fell from a
pillow Esternon was searching in Mallillin’s presence. He himself remained a meter away from
the search, and testified on cross-examination that he was with Norma so that he could keep
watch on all that was transpiring while updating the latter.
o Esternon testified that the empty packets were found in a denim bag behind the bedroom
door, and that he found the two full packets under a pillow and called Gallinera to have the
items recorded and marked. On cross-examination, he testified that he conducted the search
alone; that Mallillin handed him the pillow which included the two full packets; and that he
brought the items to the police station for a “true inventory”, then to the trial court, then to
the laboratory.
o Lorlie Arroyo, the forensic chemist who examined the items, positively claimed the substance
in the packets as shabu, and that four out of the five empty packets contained residue of the
same. She stated that it was Esternon who delivered the items to the laboratory on the same
day the search was conducted, and that it was a certain Ofelia Garcia in their office who
received the same.
o Raising irregularity of search and seizure, petitioner Mallillin testified that Esternon began the
bedroom search with Mallillin and Licup inside. However, the search was interrupted when
one of the officers noted that Sheila tucked something inside her underwear. Everyone in the
bedroom was asked to step outside with the sole exception of Esternon, while a lady officer
and Sheila entered such that theformer may proceed with a bodily examination (leaving only
Sheila, the lady officer, and Esternon in the room). While this transpired, Mallillin was asked to
buy cigarettes from a nearby store. Upon his return, he was informed that there was nothing
on Sheila. He was then requested by Esternon to return to the bedroom, whereupon he was
asked to lift the mattress and then the headboard. He was lifting the headboard when
Esternon announced that he found the shabu packet in the pillow.
o Norma, Sheila and Licup corroborated Mallillin’s testimony. Norma and Sheila attested to
Mallillin not being in the house during the entirety of the search because of the cigarette
errand. Licup stated that he was in the bedroom when the five empty packets were found,
and it was during a 3-minute period when he left the bedroom that Esternon, the lone person
inside the bedroom at the same, announced his discovery of the two full shabu packets.
  Trial Court: ruled in favor of respondents and declared Mallillin guilty of illegal possession of drugs,
stating that the shabu found in his house constituted prima facie evidence of the crime charged.
 Court of Appeals: affirmed the decision of the trial court but modified the prison term to a slightly
lesser sentence.

ISSUE:
 W/N there was regularity in the performance of duties of the officers such that the evidence obtained
was sufficient to convict – NO

RATIO:
 The mere fact of unauthorized possession is not sufficient to create the moral certainty to sustain
guilt. The chain of custody requirement is there to ensure that the item seized as evidence is the
same one presented in court.
o This requires that every person who handled the contraband would testify to how it was
handled, to ensure that the item remained in the same condition as it was when it was
retrieved.
o While not every case needs a ‘perfect’ chain of custody to be valid, “an unbroken chain of
custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not
distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial
is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness.”
o The contraband’s susceptibility to tampering dictates the strictness of the application of the
chain of custody rule.
 The testimony is insufficient and raises significant doubts in relation to the chain of custody rule and
thus the validity of the evidence.
o Only two people (Esternon and Arroyo) out of four total (including Gallinera and Garcia) who
personally handled the substance were presented to testify before the court.
 Since Gallinera was the one who marked and recorded the exhibits, his testimony was
critical.
 The prosecution offered no explanation for the failure to present Gallinera and Garcia.
 The argument that the search was conducted in a regular manner and must be presumed so is
incorrect.
o There is no logical consistency to Mallillin being tasked, on his own, to buy
cigarettes for the police officers, and Bolanos’ stationing his officers outside the house to prevent escape.
o Esternon’s claim that Mallillin handed over the pillow which allegedly contained the two full
packets is inconsistent with ordinary human behavior. Why would one risk discovery of the
paraphernalia by handing it, albeit concealed, to the investigator?
o The necessity by which Sheila had to be searched for allegedly tucking something in her
underwear was successful in drawing attention away from the search conducted by Esternon.
o The Court also took note of Esternon’s suspicious presence in the bedroom while Sheila was
being searched by the lady officer.
 The raiding team failed to adhere to Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
9165 which outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs.
o Simply put, Esternon being the one who initially found the two full packets was fully
responsible for the documenting of the same. Esternon failed to do this as he brought the
items to the police station for a “true inventory”. There was no reason he couldn’t do the
same in the house.
 The raiding team failed to adhere to Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court, which states that
items seized be immediately delivered to the trial court with a true and verified inventory of the
same.
o Esternon, again, failed this as he brought the items to the police station first for the true
inventory.
The irregularities in the performance of duty means that the presumption of regularity does not obtain, and
thus, it fails in attaining the proof beyond reasonable doubt that hurdles the presumption of innocence.
PEOPLE V. NANDI
FACTS:
 In July 2003, Chief of Police Colonel Ratuita of Police Station 3, Talipapa Quezon City was informed
by an informant that someone was selling shabu along Tandang Sora Avenue
 Ratuita immediately formed a buy-bust team, SPO4 Brigido Ann as team leader, and members
Collado, Mendi and Virgilio.
 Collado was designated to be the poseur-buyer, prepared a P500 marked with his initials on the face
of the bill, while Brigido Ann prepared pre-operations report
 The team positioned themselves around Culiat High School were the sale would take place
 The informant talked with the accused ROSE NANDI, and introduced Collado as a buyer. The accused
asked how much would he buy and said 200.00 worth of shabu.
 The money was handed in exchange of a sachet, and after examination of the contents, made the
pre-arranged signal. Collado told her she is being arrested for selling drugs, searched her and
informed her of her rights
 She was taken to the police station and the recovered items were handed to the investigator
 The specimen were taken to the crime laboratory which tested positive for shabu
 An information for violation of Section 5 Article II of RA 9165 was filed against her
 On trial she denied the said sale, and claimed that she just came from her cousin to deliver pictures
for a possible job application abroad, and that while waiting for a ride home she was dragged by a
man to a car with police officers, and was brought to the station for fear of her life.
 The trial court rendered a decision finding the accused GUILTY of the crime charged, sentenced to
LIFE IMPRISONMENT
 The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, but the appellate court sustained the decision of the
RTC.
 The accused comes to the SUPREME COURT questioning the affirmation of her conviction

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the court of appeals erred in affirming the accused-appellants conviction

RULING:
 The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in the affirmation of the accused-appellant’s
conviction.
 The court found that certain facts of substance has been overlooked, hence the general rule that
credibility of facts from witnesses is left to the trial courts can be deserted.
 In prosecution cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, these elements must be established:
o Proof that the transaction or sale took place
o The presentation in court of the corpus delicti, or the drug as evidence
 The proof of corpus delicti in a buy-bust situation requires not only the actual existence of the drugs
in question, but also the certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court were the ones
seized. Such is a condition sine qua non for conviction since drugs are the main subject of the illegal
sale constituting the crime, such that its existence and identification should be proven for the crime
to exist
 Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165, which prescribes the procedure of custody and
disposition of confiscated, seized and surrendered dangerous drugs, must be strictly complied with
as an illegal drug has a unique characteristic that it is not readily identifiable and is easily open to
tampering, alteration or substitution.
 The prosecution has failed to prove that the subject substance was the same object taken from the
accused, as PO1 Collado, the poseur-buyer has failed to describe how the seized shabu was handled
and marked after its confiscation.
o The prosecution must establish the movement of the substance from the accused, to the
police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court, to the end that every link in the chain
will not be broken and the substance would be of no change in its condition and that no
tampering has been made.
 The four links that should be established in the chain of custody of a confiscated item are:
o 1) The seizure and marking, if practicable of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer
o 2)The turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer
o 3)The turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for lab
examination
o 4)The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to
the court
 The chain of custody in the case at bar has not been established, as seen in PO1 Collado’s failure to
provide informative details on how the subject shabu was handled immediately after seizure
 No evidence was presented on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled and recorded. PO1
Collado could not even provide the court with the name of the investigator.
 The chain of custody of the illicit drug seized was compromised hence presumption of regularity in
the performance of duties cannot be applied.
 In view of the prosecution’s frail evidence, failure to establish all the elements of the crime with
moral certainty and the severity of the imposed penalty, the Court resolves doubt in favor of the
accused.
 The SUPREME COURT reversed the decision, NANDI is ACQUITTED.
PEOPLE V. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:
 The case involves a prominent politician in Mindanao, respondent Ceferino Paredes, Jr., who was
formerly the Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur, then Governor, and Congressman. During his stint,
Paredes applied for and was granted a free patent over a vast tract of land. However, it was cancelled
because apparently, it has already been designated and reserved as a school site. The court found that
Paredes had obtained title thereto through fraudulent misrepresentations in his application, and
somebody came forward and filed a case of perjury against him. However, the same was dismissed on
the ground of prescription. Then again, another case was filed against him for violation of RA 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) for using his former position as Provincial Attorney to influence
and induce the Bureau of Lands officials to favorably act on his application for patent. In all these cases,
Paredes was represented by respondent Atty. Sansaet, a practicing attorney.

 Paredes, as defense, contends that he has already been charged under the same set of facts and the
same evidence where such complaint (perjury case where he was already arraigned) has already been
dismissed. Hence, double jeopardy has already attached. In support hereof, Paredes presented court
records and transcripts as proof of his arraignment in the perjury case.

 However, the documents were found to be falsified, in conspiracy with Paredes’ counsel and the clerk
of court where the perjury case was filed. One Teofilo Gelacio claims that no notice of arraignment was
ever received by the Office of the Provincial Fiscal.
 Hence, another case was filed for falsification of judicial records. It was then that respondent Sansaet
offered to testify as a state witness against his client Paredes, claiming that the latter contrived and
induced him to have the graft case dismissed on the ground of double jeopardy by having him and co-
respondent prepare and falsify the subject documents.

 Sandiganbayan denied the motion on the ground of attorney-client privilege since the lawyer could
not testify against his own client.
 In view of such relationship, confidential matters must have been disclosed by Paredes, as client, to
accused Sansaet, as his lawyer, in his professional capacity, and therefore privileged.

ISSUE: Whether or not the testimony of respondent Sansaet, as proposed state witness, is barred by attorney-
client privilege.

HELD:

 No. There is no privileged communication rule to talk about. The privilege applies only if the
information was relayed by the client to the lawyer respecting a past crime. The reckoning point is
when the communication was given, not when the lawyer was made to testify.

 The attorney-client privilege cannot apply in these cases as the facts thereof and the actuations of both
respondents therein constitute an exception to the rule.

 It may be correctly assumed that there was a confidential communication made by Paredes to Sansaet
in connection with the criminal cases since the latter served as his counsel therein. The privilege is not
confined to verbal or written communications made by the client to his attorney but extends as well to
information communicated by other means. IOW, including physical acts. The acts and words of the
parties, therefore, during the period when the documents were being falsified were necessarily
confidential since Paredes would not have invited Sansaet to his house and allowed him to witness the
same except under conditions of secrecy and confidence.

 However, the announced intention of a client to commit a crime is not included within the
confidences which his attorney is bound to respect. It is true that by now, insofar as the falsifications
are concerned, those crimes were necessarily committed in the past.

 But for the privilege to apply, the period to be considered is the date when the privileged
communication was made by the client to the attorney in relation to either a crime committed in the
past or with respect to a crime intended to be committed in the future. IOW, if the client seeks his
lawyer’s advice with respect to a crime which he has already committed, he is given the protection of a
virtual confessional seal which the privilege declares cannot be broken by the attorney without the
client’s consent. The same privileged confidentiality, however, does not attach with regard to a crime a
 client intends to commit thereafter or in the future and for purposes of which he seeks the lawyer’s
advice.

 Here, the testimony sought to be elicited from Sansaet as state witness are the communications made
to him by physical acts and/or accompanying words of Paredes at the time he and Honrada were about
to falsify the documents. Clearly, therefore, the confidential communications thus made by Paredes
to Sansaet were for purposes of and in reference to the crime of falsification which had not yet been
committed in the past by Paredes but which he, in confederacy with his present co-respondents,
later committed. Having been made for purposes of a future offense, those communications are
outside the pale of the attorney-client privilege.

 It is well settled that communication between a lawyer and his client, to be privileged, must be for a
lawful purpose or in furtherance of a lawful end. The existence of an unlawful purpose prevents the
privilege from attaching.

 In fact, the prosecution of the honorable relation of attorney and client will not be permitted under the
guise of privilege, and every communication made to an attorney by a client for a criminal purpose is
a conspiracy or attempt at a conspiracy which is not only lawful to divulge, but which the attorney
under certain circumstances may be bound to disclose at once in the interest of justice.

2nd issue: WON SANSAET QUALIFIES AS PARTICEPS CRIMINIS (an accomplice in crime) for discharge from
criminal prosecution in order to testify for the state.

 YES. SANSAET COULD BE DISCHARGED AS STATE WITNESS. The court ruled that even if he is
indicted under separate informations, these cases are consolidated under Sec 9 rule 1199 of the
1985 RCP and thus resulted into a joint trial.
 The requisites for the discharge of Sansaet as a state witness are present and should have been
favorably appreciated by the sandiganbayan.
 Sansaet is the only cooperative eye witness to the actual commission of the falsification. There
is no direct evidence available for the prosecution hence there is absolute necessity for the
testimony of Sansaet who’s discharge is sought for that purpose.
 His testimony can be substantially corroborated on its material points by the witnesses.
 On the final requisite of the rules, it does not appear that Sansaet has at any time been
convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.
 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, SANSAET SHALL BE ALLOWED TESTIFY AS STATE WITNESS.

QUALIFICATIONS OF A STATE WITNESS:

1. THERE IS ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR THE TESTIMONY DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF OTHER WITNESSES
2. WITHOUT HIS TESTIMONY, NO OTHER DIRECT EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE FOR THE PROSECUTION TO
PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIM.
3. HIS TESTIMONY CAN BE SUBSTANTIALLY CORROBORATED IN ITS MATERIAL POINTS
4. HE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE MOST GUILTY (IN CASE OF CONSPIRACY)
5. NO EVIDENCE THAT HE HAS AT ANY TIME BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY OFFENSE INVOLVING MORAL
TURPITUDE.