Title Five

CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED

DRUGS

● Republic Act No. 9165, known as Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 approved on January
23, 2002, is an act instituting the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drug Act of 2002, repealing Republic
Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972

1. Classification of Dangerous Drugs

2. Punishable Acts (PROHIBITED DRUGS)
3. Punishable Acts: (REGULATED DRUGS)
4. Who are liable

● People vs. Blanco, August 14, 2013

FACTS
On March 26, 2007, two (2) Informations were filed against accused-appellant Blanco:
for the crime of Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Possession of Dangerous Drugs in
violation of Republic Act No. 9165,otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.
PO2 Ibañez declared that on March 23, 2007, a confidential informant told him of the
drug pushing activities of one Ryan Blanco. PO2 Ibañez immediately informed their
Team Leader, Senior Inspector Edward Quijano. Immediately, a buy-bust operation was
planned. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the
team prepared a plan whereby PO2 Ibañez was to act as poseur-buyer. The buy-bust
team arrived at the target area and saw Blanco by the railroad tracks. He and the
informant approached and asked the accused-appellant if they could buy "shabu" worth
"isang piso lang", meaning Php100.00. As he handed the marked money,
accused-Appellant Blanco took out his purse and got one (1) plastic sachet, which he
handed to the police poseur-buyer. At that juncture, PO2 Ibañez pre-arranged signal to
his teammates that the transaction was completed. PO3 Allauigan was first to approach
and assisted him in arresting and handcuffing Blanco. He also confiscated the purse in
the possession of accused-appellant and recovered six (6) more sachets of "shabu".
All the seized items were promptly marked with the initials of Blanco. The crime
laboratory later confirmed that the substances in the sachets turned positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE

On September 16, 2008, the trial court rendered a Joint Decision finding that the
prosecution established the essential requisites of the crimes charged and
accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and possession of
shabu.

DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED

Accused-appellant Blanco denied the charges against him. He informed the said officer
that he does not know anyone involved in illegal drugs in their area, he was asked who
between him and his wife will be detained. As his wife was then 2 months pregnant, he
offered himself to be detained instead.

Blanco contends that the trial court, in convicting him of the crime of illegal sale of
shabu, erred in giving full weight and credence to the prosecution's testimony
notwithstanding its material and glaring inconsistencies. He particularly claims that the
conduct of a surveillance and test-buy operation by the buy-bust team is crucial to his
conviction. He further asserts the alleged variations as to how the actual transaction of
sale took place as narrated in the joint affidavits of arrest and as testified to in open
court by PO2 Renato Ibañez (PO2 Ibañez). Thus, appellant insists that the presentation
of the confidential informant is necessary in this case. Appellant also questions the
propriety of conducting a buy-bust operation by the apprehending police officers against
him.

ISSUE
Whether or not trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the prosecution's
testimony notwithstanding its material and glaring inconsistencies

RULING
NO. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor
details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, its veracity
or the weight of their testimonies.

For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be
proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the
transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the
prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti.
The prosecution duly established the identity of accused-appellant as a drug seller or
pusher, through the testimonies of PO2 Ibañez, the poseur-buyer, and PO3 Allauigan,
as back-up officer.

Indeed in the instant case, all the elements constituting the illegal sale of dangerous
drug are present. The sale of shabu was consummated. The alleged inconsistencies in
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are mere minor matters, which do not
detract from the fact that a buy-bust operation was conducted.
● People vs. Salvador, February 10, 2014
FACTS
On or about the 3rd day of September, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, Glenn
Salvador, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute
any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver,
transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, one (1) plastic sachet of
white crystalline substance containing zero point zero four (0.04) gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride a dangerous drug.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE

The prosecution presented PO2 Sofjan Soriano (PO2 Soriano) to testify on the
entrapment operation that resulted in the arrest of appellant and Parcon.

While PO2 Soriano was on duty in Police Station 2, Baler Street, Quezon City on
September 2, 2003, a confidential informant reported that a certain alias Bumski was
engaged in the illicit sale of dangerous drugs in Barangay Pag-asa, Quezon City. PO2
Soriano immediately relayed this information to Police Chief Inspector Joseph De Vera.
Thus, a police team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation.

At around 2:45 p.m. Sep. 3, PO2 Soriano and the CI proceeded to appellant’s house
while the rest of the buy-bust team positioned themselves within viewing distance. The
CI introduced PO2 Soriano to appellant as a drug dependent who wanted to purchase
₱200.00 worth of shabu. During their conversation, Parcon arrived and asked appellant
for shabu. Appellant gave her a small heat-sealed plastic sachet that she placed in her
coin purse. Thereafter, PO2 Soriano handed to appellant the buy-bust money consisting
of two 100-peso bills and the latter, in turn, gave him a heat-sealed plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Soriano then immediately arrested
appellant and recovered from his right hand pocket the buy bust money. PO1 Pineda
arrested Parcon and recovered from her a plastic sachet also containing white
crystalline substance. Appellant and Parcon were then taken to the Baler Police Station.

DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED

In his testimony, appellant claimed that at about 11:00 p.m. of September 2, 2003, he
was parking his tricycle outside his residence when a patrol car suddenly stopped in
front of his house. Three policemen alighted, aimed their guns at him, and forced him to
board their vehicle. Already inside were two men in handcuffs sitting on the floor. The
police car then proceeded to Police Station 2 in Baler, Quezon City, where he and the
two other men were taken to a room and frisked by policemen who demanded
P20,000.00 from each of them. They were told to call their relatives to inform them of
their arrest for engaging in a pot session. When appellant refused to oblige, PO Soriano
said to him: "matigas ka, hindi ka marunong makisama dapat sayo ikulong." He was
thereafter detained and no longer saw the two men he mentioned. Two days later, he
was presented to the Prosecutor's Office for inquest.
Appellant accused the police officers of falsehood but could not file a case against them
since his parents were in the Unites States of America and he did not know anyone else
who could help him. He denied knowing Parcon and the arresting officers and claimed
that he saw Parcon for the first time during the Inquest and the arresting officers when
they arrested him.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court seriously erred in declaring the guilt of the accused-appelant
despite the non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of seized
dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165.

RULING
NO
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following
elements must be established: "(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 therefor. x
x x What is material in 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" or the illicit drug in evidence. "[T]he commission of the offense of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs x x x merely requires the consummation of the selling
transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the
buyer and the seller takes place."

In this case, the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of
shabu. The testimony of PO2 Soriano reveals that an entrapment operation was
organized and conducted after they confirmed through a surveillance operation the
information that appellant is engaged in drug peddling activities.

Prosecutions for illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation. Their narration of the incident, "buttressed by the
presumption that they have regularly performed their duties in the absence of
convincing proof to the contrary, must be given weight." Here, the CA affirmed the
RTC’s ruling that the testimonies and facts stipulated upon were consistent with each
other as well as with the physical evidence. Thus, there is no justification to disturb the
findings of the RTC, as sustained by the CA, on the matter.

● People vs. Tumulak, July 25, 2016

FACTS: On July 31, 2002, a buy-bust operation was organized at the Narcotics Division of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) pursuant to a tip given by a confidential informant, who was
able to set up a sale for thirty (30) ecstasy tablets. Special Investigator Arthur R. Oliveros (SI
Oliveros) was designated as the poseur-buyer. After the meeting, the buy-bust team proceeded to
Starbucks Coffee at Remedios Circle, Manila, where they would locate the confidential informant.

When SI Oliveros asked about the other twenty-nine (29) ecstasy tablets, Mitch demanded that he
give her the P60,000.00 first so she could count it inside the restroom. SI Oliveros complied and
handed her a white envelope containing two (2) pre-marked P500-bills and the boodle money. Then
Mitch excused herself to go to the restroom. SI Oliveros followed Mitch on her way to the restroom,
together with his backup, Special Investigator Ronald C. Abulencia (SI Abulencia). Before Mitch
could enter the restroom, SI Oliveros and SI Abulencia introduced themselves as NBI agents and
arrested her. SI Oliveros inspected her bag and found all thirty (30) pieces of ecstasy tablets equally
distributed inside three (3) separate transparent plastic sachets.
CONTENTION OF THE STATE: The RTC and CA found Mitch guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of the 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 SI 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.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: She 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.

COURT RULING: In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements
must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction 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. aw

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 other words, what is important is that the poseur-buyer received the drug from the
accused.
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
Cafe Adriatico.

● People vs. Maongco, October 23, 2013

Facts: Alvin Carpio was apprehended for illegal possession of dangerous drug (shabu)
and told the police that it was Michael Maongco. Police officers conducted an operation
involving Carpio buying two (2)“bulto” of shabu from Maongco. The police officers went
to the place where Maongco was waiting and arrested him after the latter showed one
(1) “bulto” of shabu. Police officer asked where the other “bulto” was, Maongco said that
it was in the possession of Phans Bandali who was waiting in Jollibee. Police officer
approached Bandali and demanded from him the other half of the drugs ordered which
voluntarily handed over.

Contention of the accused: The petitioners alleged there was no legitimate buy-bust
operation because there was no actual sale of dangerous drugs in the operation
conducted by police officers.

Contention of the state: Petitioners are criminally liable for violation of Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165 even if there was no legitimate buy-bust operation.
Issue: Whether the petitioners may still be held criminally liable under Section 5, Article
II of RA9165 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 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

● People vs. Santos, October 17, 2007

Facts: That on or about the 28th day of August 2002 in the Municipality of San Mateo,
Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control white crystalline substance
placed in twelve (12) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets with a total weight of 1.36
grams which were found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.

Contention of the State: The Court also agrees with the OSG’s contention that the
inconsistencies in Tougan’s testimony on the matter of the list should not be ignored.
During the trial, when Tougan was asked whether the appellant's name appeared in the
list, he categorically answered in the affirmative. Then again, it surfaced that this
assertion was untruthful as the list he had brought to court did not contain the
appellant's name. The Court believes that Tougan’s lack of candidness on this detail
renders the rest of his testimony doubtful.

Contention of the Accused: Appellant stated that he volunteered to be a police

informer and served as such from May to July 2002. During this period, he reported to
the police officers four times and had acted three times as a poseur-buyer. He, however,
decided to sever his ties with the police officers as the latter reneged on their promise to
give him money each time a drug pusher was arrested. He also claimed that the police
officers had him arrested in order to conceal the illegal acts they had committed during
arrests, such as confiscating all the belongings and monies of the person arrested. But
he admitted having been previously indicted in two (2) cases for selling and possessing
shabu. On re-direct examination, he revealed that he was released from imprisonment
on 13 December 2001. Thereafter, he worked as a tricycle driver and applied for a job in
the municipal government of San Mateo, Rizal.

Ruling: Concededly, the evidence of the defense is weak and uncorroborated.1âwphi1

This, however, cannot be used to advance the cause of the prosecution as the evidence
for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the defense. Moreover, when the circumstances are
capable of two or more inferences, as in this case, such that one of which is consistent
with the presumption of innocence and the other is compatible with guilt, the
presumption of innocence must prevail and the court must acquit.
● People vs. Bacadi, July 1, 2015
Facts:

SI Fineza and Agent Dungog of the National Bureau of Investigation received information from a
confidential asset regarding the open sale of shabu in Barangay Looc. After verification of the
information received, a team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation wherein SI Fineza
was designated as the poseur buyer to handle the marked money.

They went to Brgy. Looc and there they met Baticolon and Bocadi who offered them shabu. This
led to the agreement for the purchase of ₱300.00 worth of the illicit drug. Bocadi then went
inside a house, and when he came back, he gave to SI Fineza one transparent sachet of
suspected shabu. Simultaneously, SI Fineza handed over the marked bills to Baticolon who was
then nearer to him. Bocadi and Baticolon tried to escape but the group immediately arrested
them.

Contention of the Respondent:

Both accused denied the allegations against them. They claimed that Baticolon was merely
resting in his house when Walter - allegedly a known police asset barged inside his house and
yanked him out. While outside, Walter punched Baticolon on the stomach bodily searched
Baticolon and took his wallet. Baticolon was thereafter handcuffed and brought to the NBI office
together with co-accused Bocadi.

Baticolon also questions the validity of the buy-bust operation. He contends that with the
enactment of R.A. No. 9165, it is now required that all anti-drug operations shall be coordinated
with the PDEA, and only specially trained and competent drug enforcement personnel shall
conduct drug enforcement operations. He argues that the NBI' s operation is highly questionable
considering that it is neither a deputized agent of PDEA nor is buy-bust operations its primary
mandate.

Contention of the State:

The trial court rendered a Decision finding accused Bocadi and Baticolon guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of shabu. The trial court held that the elements of
illegal sale of drugs were clearly established through the evidence presented by the
prosecution. It ruled that the prosecution was able to prove the fact that both accused were
caught in flagrante delicto in a valid buy-bust operation. It noted that the defense of denial
offered by the accused cannot overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties accorded to the apprehending officers.

ISSUE:
Whether the trial courts erred in upholding the existence and validity of the buy bust operation
conducted by the NBI.

HELD:
No. In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the
prosecution is able to establish the following essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.

As long as the state can show by record or testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not
been compromised by accounting for the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at
least between the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was tested in the
laboratory, then the prosecution can maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.

The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved unless there is a showing of
bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. Appellant bears the burden
of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled with in order to overcome the
presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that
public officers properly discharged their duties. Appellant in this case failed to present any
plausible reason to impute ill motive on the part of the arresting officers. Thus, the testimonies of
the apprehending officers deserve full faith and credit.

● People vs. Alacdis, June 19, 2017

FACTS:
On April 21, 2008 SPO2 Agbayani and the confidential informant met Lingbanan and Alacdis at
Kinudayan Restaurant, Kilometer 6, La Trinidad Benguet. SPO2 Agbayani introduced by the
confidential informant as a prospective buyer for marijuana to Lingbanan and Alacdis however,
since they did not have with them the stocks at that time they agreed to keep in touch.

On May 3, 2008, Lingbanan and Alacdis contacted SPO2 Agbayani informing the latter that the
two kilos marijuana is ready for pick-up at the covered court of Baguio State University. Before
SPO2 Agbayani left he told Lingbanan and Alacdis that if marijuana turned out to be of good
quality he would buy more. The following day, Alacdis called SPO2 Agbayani asking if the
quality of marijuana was up to his standard which affirmatively responded by SPO2 Agbani. He
offered to buy 110 kilos of marijuana for P150, 000. Lingbanan and Alacdis counter-offered to
deliver only 107 kilos of marijuana for the said amount which SPO2 Agbayani agreed.

On May 5, 2008, Lingbanan contacted SPO2 Agbayani to pick-up the 107 kilos of marijuana at
Rizal Park, Baguio City. SPO2 Agbayani agreed and he informed PCI Apalla, who formed a
buy-bust team as back-up.

On May 6, 2008, at around 10 o’clock in the morning SPO2 Agbayani received a message from
Lingbanan and Alacdis that there was a sudden change of plans and they were sending the
accused-appellant to deliver the marijuana. At around 11:00 o’clock in the morning, Lingbanan
called SPO2 Agbayani that the stocks of marijuana were inside the taxi. SPO2 Agbayani asked
to be• shown the goods first before he gives the money. Accused-appellant instructed the taxi
driver to open the back of the taxi where several cartons were placed. SP02 Agbayani could
smell the marijuana. Accused-appellant opened one carton in front SP02 Agbayani who saw
several marijuana bricks inside. SPO2 Agbayani gave the pre-arranged signal by removing his
bull cap and backup team rushed to the scene and arrested the accused-appellant and taxi
driver, Danny Sison. The police confiscated five cartons containing several bricks of marijuana
and decided to bring the same to the PDEA-CAR office for marking and inventory considering its
volume.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE:

The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish that there was indeed an illegal sale of
dried marijuana leaves by Lingbanan and Alacdis with the indispensable cooperation of
accused-appellant, who delivered and transported the corpus delicti to the poseur-buyer SPO2
Agbayani, through a legitimate buy-bust operation. The accused-appellant was found guilty by
the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay P5, 000.000, which is
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
CONTENTION OF THE DEFENSE:
The accused-appellant contends that he cannot be held liable for the violation of Section 5,
Article ll RA 9165 for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
RULING:
No, Illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer, and the
receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction.
Consideration/payment is one of the essential elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
without which, accused-appellant’s conviction for the said crime cannot stand. In this case, the
sale of the dangerous drugs cannot be said to have been consummated because the
accused-appellant did not received consideration, He was arrested immediately after the box
containing the marijuana bricks were opened for SPO2 Agabayani. However, the
accused-appellant is not absolved of criminal liability and may still be held liable under Section
5, Article II of RA 9165 for the delivery and transport of marijuana, and all the elements of illegal
delivery of dangerous drugs were present, The Supreme Court ruled that the accused-appellant
is found guilty of illegal delivery and transportation of 107 kilos of marijuana and sentenced to
life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P1, 000,000.

● People vs. SAIDAMIN MACABALANG y MALAMAMA, November 27, 2006

FACTS:

Saidamin was charged before the RTC for violation of Section 15, R.A. 6425, by selling and
distributing to a poseur buyer about 1,972.6 grams of shabu.

● PO1 Christopher Guste (PO1 Guste), the poseur-buyer;

● PO1 Ronnie Fabia (PO1 Fabia), member of the buy-bust operation team;
● Chief Inspector Leonardo Suan (Inspector Suan), head of the buy-bust team;
● and Senior Inspector Sonia S. Lodovico, a Forensic Chemist.

On 21 July 1999, at around 9:00 o’clock in the morning, Inspector Suan, Deputy Chief of the
Intelligence Division of Narcotics Command, received a report from a confidential informant
that a certain Amin was looking for a buyer of shabu and instructed his informant to contract
with Amin for two (2) kilos of shabu.
Two (2) hours later, a fourteen-man buy-bust team was formed by Inspector Suan, with PO1
Guste acting as poseur-buyer. After the briefing, Inspector Suan gave PO1 Guste two (2)
genuine P1,000.00 bills, marked with letters "CG" and boodle money amounting to
P1,000,000.00.

At 6:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, the team proceeded to the fourth level parking
lot of SM City, North Avenue, Quezon City, the meeting place designated by SAIDAMIN.
They observed the area for two (2) hours and positioned themselves within the vicinity. PO1
Guste stayed outside the car with the informant while the others were inside their separate
vehicles.

Two hours thereafter, a Mitsubishi Lancer car, with Plate No. UTD 147, approached the
parking lot. SAIDAMIN alighted from the car. PO1 Guste and the informant approached him
and appropriate introductions were made. SAIDAMIN then went to a green Toyota Corolla
car, parked next to his car, bearing Plate No. WBH 491. He opened the rear compartment,
took out a yellow box, and gave it to PO1 Guste. When appellant asked for the money, PO1
Guste invited the latter over into his own car, which was parked about ten (10) meters
away. Upon reaching his car, PO1 Guste checked the contents of the box and found two (2)
plastic bags containing white crystalline substance. He immediately gave the money to
appellant and stepped out of the car. As a prearranged signal to his police companions to
close in, PO1 Guste removed his cap. The rest of the team members converged to where PO1
Guste, the informant and appellant were situated, introduced themselves as policemen, and
apprehended Saidamin and brought him to Camp Crame for investigation.

PO1 Guste executed an affidavit narrating the incident. The carton containing shabu and the
boodle money were turned over to the investigator. On the following day, the confiscated carton
containing two (2) plastic bags was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they were
examined and results confirmed that the white crystalline substance was shabu.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT:

Appellant cites some irregularities attending the alleged buy-bust operation.

● The vehicles used by the police during the operation were not official government vehicles
and the buy-bust money was not only personally produced by Inspector Suan. It was not
even dusted with fluorescent powder.
● No surveillance was conducted.
● The boxes allegedly containing the shabu and the plastic bags containing money were not
subjected to fingerprint examination and after the buy-bust operation, the police did not make
an inventory of the personal effects seized.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE:

The alleged irregularities according to Saidanim pertain only to minor details which do not affect the
guilt of appellant.

● The type of vehicle used by the police officers does not taint the valid character of
the buy-bust operation. The failure of Narcom agents to use fluorescent powder on
the boodle money does not indicate a failure in the buy-bust operation. It has been
held that the use of fluorescent powder is not indispensable in such operations.
Besides, the money was already marked by the poseur-buyer with his initials,
"CG.
 ● No surveillance of the area or the subject of the entrapment is necessary where the
police officers have a reasonable ground to believe that the informer and the
information given were reliable, and that a crime is indeed being perpetrated.
● The police officers established that they were in close coordination with the Central
Police District.
● For failure of appellant to support his claim of stolen check, the absence of an
inventory of personal effects seized from appellant becomes immaterial to the
legitimacy of the buy-bust operation.

RULING:

The court held that the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug
itself was presented as evidence in court. Therefore, Saidamin is liable for violating Section 15,
RA 6425, for selling shabu and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00.

Here, the identity of the seller accused and buyer (PO1 Guste), were established. The
illegal drugs (shabu) was duly presented before the trial court and the prosecution[;] through the
testimonies of the Narcom agents, was able to present in a clear and convincing manner on
how the sale transaction took place.

● People vs. Rom, February 19, 2014

FACTS:
On 31 August 2000, at around 10:15 p.m., P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez, Chief of VCS-CCPO,
formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against the appellant. The buy-bust
team was composed of PO2 Martinez (poseur-buyer), Senior Police Officer 1 Jesus
Elmer Fernandez (SPO1 Fernandez), PO3 Yanson, PO3 Benicer Tamboboy (PO3
Tamboboy), PO3 Jaime Otadoy (PO3 Otadoy) and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez (team leader).
After the briefing, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area and upon arrival there
at around 10:20 p.m., PO2 Martinez proceeded directly to the Vicente Rom's house,
which was earlier pointed to by their informant, who was also with them during the
buy-bust operation. PO2 Martinez subsequently told the Rom's that he wanted to buy
shabu worth P100.00. Vicente Rom looked around to check if PO2 Martinez had a
companion. Seeing none, Rom took out his wallet from his pocket and got one
heat-sealed plastic packet containing white crystalline substance, later confirmed to be
shabu, and gave it to PO2 Martinez. The latter, in turn, gave the P100.00 peso bill
marked money to the appellant. While this sale transaction was going on, PO3 Yanson
and P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez was only five to eight meters away from PO2 Martinez and the
appellant. P/Sr. Insp. Sanchez clearly witnessed the sale transaction as it happened
right outside the door of Rom's house. Upon entering the house, PO2 Martinez signaled
the members of his team and shortly barged inside Rom's house and arrested Rom and
3 other persons who were, at that time, also inside the house.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE:

Finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible, competent and
convincing as they were able to satisfactorily prove all the elements of the offenses
charged against Rom, the trial court, in its Decision dated 24 June 2002, held Vicente
Rom guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 15, 15-A and 16, Article III
of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended

DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED:

Rom denied that he sold shabu to PO2 Martinez. He also denied that he was
maintaining a drug den and that he allowed persons to sniff shabu inside the house in
Barangay T. Padilla, Cebu City, in exchange for a sum of money. Rom likewise denied
that he knew the three other men who were arrested inside the room in the said house.
Rom claimed instead that he knew PO2 Martinez prior to 31 August 2000 because the
latter usually stayed at the house to apprehend snatchers. Also, a week before 31
August 2000, he and PO2 Martinez had a conversation and he was asked to pinpoint
the “fat fish,” which is the code for the big time pusher. When he said that he does not
know of such pusher, PO2 Martinez got angry.

COURT RULING
After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds no cogent or compelling reason to
overturn the findings of both lower courts, which were adequately supported by the
evidence on record. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like
shabu, the following essential elements must be duly established: (1) identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor.38 Succinctly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer, as well as the receipt of the marked money by the seller, successfully
consummates the buy-bust transaction. Hence, what is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti
as evidence.

● Ventura vs. People, August 8, 2007

FACTS:
In an information filed, the accused-appellant were charged
before the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan with illegal sale of shabu
in violation of Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Act of
2002.
On about 10th of August, the accused-appellant, did, and there
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give
away dispatch in transit and transport dangerous drug
consisting of one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of
Methylamphetamnine Hydrochloride weighing 0.124 gram.

Contention of the State:

The defense failed to account for the chain of custody of the
evidence.
In prosecutions involving the illegal sale of drugs, what is
material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited
or regulated drug as evidence. For conviction of the crime of
illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs, the following
elements must concur:

(1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
The testimonial and documentary pieces of evidence adduced
by the prosecution in support of its case against
accused-appellant establish the presence of these elements.

Contention of the Defense:

The defense claims that the court committed serious error in

the following:
1. Finding the existence of an unbroken chain in the
custody of the shabu subject of the buy-bust operation as well
as its evidentiary value; and
2. Ruling that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 is not fatal.

Court’s Ruling:

Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and

Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements said
provision, stipulates:
(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, 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.
 Under the same provison, non-compliance with the stipulated
procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as
long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.
In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that
accused-appellant was involved in the buy-bust operation.
Having been caught in flagrante delicto, accused-appellant’s
participation cannot be doubted.

Abuan vs. People, October 27, 2006

FACTS:
SPO2 Gamboa and SPO2 De Vera received an information from Marissa Gorospe on the alleged illegal
drug activities in Abuan’s residence and thus, conducted surveillance-monitoring operations in her house.
During the operation, around 20 suspected drug pushers and drug addicts were seen coming in and out
of the house of the accused. The officers applied for a warrant, searched the house of the accused, and
seized methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), weighing scale, aluminum foil, and burner. Informant
claims to know Abuan because they both work in Avon.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE:

The Executive Judge found probable cause to issue a warrant.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED:

Abuan objected to the admission of the search warrant and the articles confiscated based on the ground
that the warrant was issued without probable cause.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the prosecution adduced evidence to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the
violation of Sec. 16, Art. III of R.A. No. 6425.

RULING:
Yes. The trial court reviewed the testimony of Gorospe before the Executive Judge and confirmed that,
there was probable cause against petitioner for violation of said crime. The finding of the Executive Judge
was corroborated by the testimony of police officers de Vera and Gamboa, who, in their surveillance
operation, partially confirmed Gorospe’s claim that, indeed, people had been going to the house of
petitioner to buy shabu.

The well-entrenched rule is that the findings of the trial court affirmed by the appellate court are accorded
high respect, if not conclusive effect, by this Court, absent clear and convincing evidence that the
tribunals ignored, misconstrued, or misapplied facts and circumstances of substances such that, if
considered, the same will warrant the modification or reversal of the outcome of the case. In this case,
petitioner failed to establish any such circumstance.

● People vs. Quelnan, July 6, 2007

Facts: Sometime in 1996, the Police Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC)
was tasked to implement a search warrant to a certain Bernard Lim for probably
possessing MA HCI (Shabu). The team was escorted to the unit by the security officer
(Punsaran), upon arrival at the place to be searched, a male person naked from the
waist up opened the door, which was later identified as Quelnan. The team presented
the search warrant and proceeded with the search. In the presence of Quelnan and
Punsaran, they found on top of a bedroom table 3 pieces of transparent plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance which was later examined as Shabu. The next
day, Quelnan was arrested for violation of Sec. 16 Art. III of RA 6425.

Contention of the State: The above-named accused, without being authorized by law,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody
and control 27.7458 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a regulated
drug.

Defense of the Accused: Quelnan in his defense averred that he is not residing in the
said unit, but he is the registered owner of the said unit, which he leased to Sung Kok
Lee beginning May 1996. That he was there during he search for he was collecting the
rent. That he was forced to sign some documents at gunpoint, handcuffed and brought
to PARAC Office. Two days later, he was brought to Makati Prosecutor's Office for
inquest and a case was filed against him.

Issues: Whether or not the search warrant was properly enforced provided that he was
not the subject of the search warrant.

Whether or not Quelnan was validly arrested.

Ruling: Yes, there is no provision of law that requires the search warrant must name
the person who occupies the described premises, that where the search warrant is
issued for the search of a specifically described premises only and not for the search of
a person, and failure to name to owner or occupant of such property in the affidavit and
search warrant does not invalidate the warrant.

Quelnan was arrested in flagrante delicto. In the prosecution of possession of illegal

drugs the following requisites must be present:
the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug;
the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and
the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.
That there must be intent to possess the drug, which includes actual possession or
constructive possession. Actual possession exist when the drug is immediate physical
possession or control of the accused, while constructive possession exist when he drug
is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion over the place where it is found.

Quelnan was found and caught in flagrante when the shabu was found in his
constructive possession.
● People vs. Lagman, December 8, 2008

Facts: The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted surveillance of a piggery

farm in Porac, Pampanga after receiving reports that there was clandestine operation of
shabu laboratories therein and that said piggery was being used as a front. It was
gathered that three Chinese nationals, namely Zeng, Li and Gan occupied the farm, and
Maribel Lagman frequented the place while Zeng and Li would go over to her rented
house in Balibago, Angeles City which she was sharing with her Chinese common-law
husband, Jose Bobby Yu.

Consequently, 2 NBI teams, armed with search warrants, simultaneously raided the
Porac farm and the Balibago residence. The search of the farm yielded no person
therein or any tell-tale evidence that it was being used as a shabu laboratory. After a
while, Li arrived and his vehicle was searched, yielding a digital weighing scale and a
packet with crystalline substance weighing approximately 317.60 grams which when
field-tested was found positive for shabu. Later on, Zeng also arrived at the farm on
board an L-300 Mitsubishi van, bearing a blue drum containing liquid which was also
found positive for shabu.

With respect to the search of the Balibago residence by the other NBI team, they found
two padlocked rooms inside the house, but with Maribel claiming that she did not have
any keys thereto, the team forcibly opened the rooms which yielded 18 big plastic
containers containing liquid substance, sacks containing a white powdery substance, 10
plastic containers also containing a white powdery substance. The liquid substance
contained in of the 18 plastic containers was subjected to a chemical field-test and was
found positive for shabu. The contents of the drums turned out to be alcohol solvents;
the powder in the sacks was determined to be ephedrine hydrochloride; and the liquid in
the plastic containers was determined to be sodium hydroxide. These chemicals are
used in the manufacture of shabu. Thus, Li, Zeng and Lagman were all charged in
violation of RA 7659 (Dangerous Drug Act). However, only Zeng and Lagman were
convicted.

Defense of the Accused: Maribel disclaimed knowledge that dangerous drugs or

substances were being kept in the locked rooms of her house which she had been
sharing with Yu who had disappeared, and she averred that it was Yu who placed the
containers and sacks in the rooms which he padlocked, telling her that they were
fertilizers and restaurant items belonging to a friend. Meanwhile, Zheng insisted that the
78 kilograms of methamphetamine hydrochloride in liquid form contained in the blue
plastic container was illegally obtained and was not even formally offered in evidence,
hence, the same should have been excluded; that the prosecution failed to prove that
he had no authority to possess the alleged shabu confiscated from his person; and that
the conclusion that the liquid contents of the blue plastic drum is methamphetamine
hydrochloride is erroneous, no quantitative test as to its purity having been conducted.

Contention of the State: Maribel failed to present any convincing evidence to rebut the
presumption of knowledge and possession of the regulated substances and
paraphernalia found in her residence because as tenant of the house, she had full
access to, full control of and dominion over the rooms. As for Zeng’s arguments, the
testimonies of five members of the NBI raiding team that a blue drum containing liquid
was found in the van driven by Zeng -- which liquid, when field-tested, was found to be
methamphetamine hydrochloride -- deserves full faith and credence, absent any
showing that these officers were not properly performing their duty or that they were
inspired by any improper motive.

Ruling: The finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building owned or
occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession
thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.

Furthermore, the NBI forensic chemist already testified that the liquid contained therein
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, and such finding is presumed to be
representative of the entire contents of the container unless proven otherwise. More
importantly, what the Dangerous Drugs Act punishes is the possession of the
dangerous or regulated drugs or substances without authority. Whether the substance is
pure or unadulterated is not material; hence, quantitative examination of the substance
to determine its purity is not indispensable for conviction.

● David vs. People, October 17, 2011

● People vs. Balawan, June 8, 2016
Facts:
Arresting officer 101 de la Cerna, gave testimony in court about a buy-bust operation in
which he posed as the buyer. He stated that he did not bring the pre-prepared buy-bust
money of PHP 1,000 and that he had no such money when he encountered the
defendant. When de la Cerna confirmed the presence of marijuana, he signaled to his
team leader who was nearby in a parked vehicle. He then announced his identity as a
PDEA agent and informed the defendant of the violation, leading to the defendant's
arrest. At the time of the arrest, the defendant was informed of his rights and an
inventory of the items was conducted and marked with "RDC" before being taken to the
office.
After weighing the evidence, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC found that
although the identity of the alleged buyer, seller, and object were established, two
elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were still missing - the consideration and the
payment. As testified to by 101 de la Cerna himself, he did not bring any buy-bust
money and that there was no payment of the alleged marijuana he received from
accused-appellant.

Contention of the State:

The prosecution claimed that there was prior negotiation between the confidential
informant and accused-appellant.
The CA considered the transaction as a sale of drugs based on the testimony of De la
Cerna and the fact that the accused handed over the marijuana in exchange for money,
even though the actual exchange of money was not explicitly shown.

Contention of the Accused:

He argues that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt, and that he
cannot be convicted of delivery or possession of dangerous drugs when such was not
charged in the Information.
Ruling:
SC acquits accused appellant. He is charged, particularly, with unlawfully selling and/or
offering to sell or give away marijuana. The prosecution was not able to prove that there
was even a consideration for the supposed transaction.

For a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165; the following elements must be present:
(1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.

In the case at bar, it is readily apparent that no sale was consummated as the
consideration, much less its receipt by accused-appellant, were not established.

● People vs. Casacop, January 13, 2016

FACTS:
Acting on a tip from an informant that a certain Edong (appellant Ronaldo Casacop) was selling
shabu in Quezon Street, Barangay San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna, the Chief of Police of San
Pedro Police Station, Police Superintendent Sergio Dimandal formed a team to conduct
surveillance on appellant. Upon receiving a positive result, the buy-bust team formed by SP04
Dela Peña proceeded to the target area and conducted the operation. The appellant was
arrested and was brought to the police station. The Chemistry Report confirmed the seized
items as positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE:

Appellant Ronaldo Casacop violated Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 9165

DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED:

Appellant denied the charges of possession of shabu and its paraphernalia and sale of shabu.
He claimed that the police only planted evidence against him because they were not able to pin
him down in a robbery case.

Appellant also asserts that the chain of custody of the object evidence was never established.
Moreover, appellant claims that Section 2l(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.
No. 9165 was not complied with.

ISSUE:
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Rodrigo Casacop was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:
YES. For the successful prosecution of a case for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements
must be proven: (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 therefor. On the other hand, in prosecuting a
case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
drug.

In this case, all the elements for the illegal sale of shabu were established. PO1 Signap, the
poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the person who sold him the white crystalline
substance in one plastic sachet which was later proven to be positive for shabu. In exchange for
this plastic sachet; PO1 Signap handed the marked money as payment. The delivery of the
contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully
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.

Also, the chain of custody was clearly accounted for. Records show that PO1 Signap recovered
from appellant three (3) plastic sachets of shabu, a glass tooter and aluminum foil. These items
were marked and inventoried in the house of appellant and in his presence. Thereafter, these
seized items were brought to the police station where a request for qualitative examination was
made. SPO4 Dela Peña signed the request and it was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Police
Senior Inspector and Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas conducted the examination. As
the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to establish the corpus
delicti were proven, substantial compliance with Section 21, paragraph I, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 will suffice.

Further, the contention of the appellant that the police officers failed to comply with the
provisions of paragraph I, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 for the proper procedure in the custody
and disposition of the seized drugs is untenable. It appears from the testimony of PO1 Signap
that after he showed the three (3) marked one hundred peso (Pl00.00) bills, appellant brought
out a plastic Sachet containing white crystalline substance which was later found out to contain
"shabu," a dangerous drug. Two (2) more plastic sachets containing "shabu" and other drug
paraphernalia were recovered from appellant after he was bodily searched. Thereafter, the
apprehending team, before proceeding to the Police Station, had the seized drugs and drug
paraphernalia inventoried and marked at appellant's house in his presence. At the said station,
SPO4 Dela Pena prepared a Certification of Inventory as to the items seized from appellant.
The said certification was signed by one representative from the media by the name of Edward
Pelayo. A Booking Sheet/ Arrest Report was issued to appellant and a letter request was sent to
the PNP, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City, Crime Laboratory Office for examination of the
seized plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance.

● People vs. Martinez, December 13, 2010

People v. Martinez et al.

G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010

The application of Sec. 5, Rule 113 on valid warrantless arrests requires personal knowledge, at
the time of the arrest, by the arresting officer that the accused had just committed a crime, were
committing, or about to commit a crime.
CONTENTION OF THE STATE

On September 2, 2006 at around 1245 PM, PO1 Bernard Azarden was on duty at the Police
Community Precinct along Arellano St., Dagupan City when a concerned citizen reported that a
pot session was underway in the house of accused Rafael Gonzales in Trinidad Subdivision,
Dagupan City. PO1 Azardan, PO1 Alejandro dela Cruz and members of Special Weapons and
Tactics (SWAT) proceeded to aforesaid house and, upon inquiry from people in the area, the
house of Gonzales was located. As the team entered the house, accused Orlando Doria was
arrested while coming out. Inside the house were Gonzales, Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, and
Rezin Martinez. Seized from the accused were open plastic sachets (containing shabu residue),
pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and pieces of used aluminum foil. The accused were arrested
and brought to police station, seized items were sent to the Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime
Laboratory. All accused, except for Doria, were found positive for methylamphetamine HCL. The
case against Doria was dismissed on a demurrer to evidence.

On February 13, 2008, RTC found Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon, Rezin Martinez and Rafael
Gonzales guilty beyond reasonable doubt under Sec. 13 in relation to Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and sentenced each to life imprisonment and
fined PHP 500,000 plus cost of suit.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED

The defense, through its witnesses, accused A. Martinez, Dizon, and R. Martinez,
claimed that in the morning of September 2, 2006, the three of them were along Arellano
Street in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City, to meet with a certain Apper who bumped the
passenger jeep of R. Martinez and who was to give the materials for the painting of said jeep.
As they were going around the subdivision looking for Apper, they saw Gonzales in front of
his house and asked him if he noticed a person pass by. While they were talking, Doria
arrived. It was then that five to seven policemen emerged and apprehended them. They were
handcuffed and brought to the police station in Perez, Dagupan City, where they were
incarcerated and charged with sniffing shabu.

The CA ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the RTC

ISSUE: Were the guilt of the accused proven beyond reasonable doubt?

NO- Court sets aside and reverses the decision of the CA dated August 7, 2009,
acquits the accused and orders their immediate release

RULING:

No, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt because (1) evidence against the accused are inadmissible and (2) even if the
evidence were admissible, the chain of custody was not duly established .

The evidence is inadmissible because of the illegal arrest, search and seizure. Searches
and seizures without a warrant are valid in (1) incidence of lawful arrest, (2) “plain view” search of
evidence, (3) moving vehicle search, (4) consented search, (5) customs search, (6) stop and frisk,
(7) exigent and emergency cases. Under Rule 113, Sec. 5 of RRCP warrantless arrest can only be
done in in flagrante cases, hot pursuit cases, and fugitive cases. The arrest of the
accused-appellants were based solely on the report of a concerned citizen, no surveillance of the
place was conducted. Under Rule 113, fugitive case does not apply. In flagrante and hot pursuit
case may apply only upon probable cause, which means actual belief or reasonable ground of
suspicion. It is reasonable ground of suspicion when suspicion of a person to be arrested is
probably guilty of the offense based on actual facts, that is, supported by circumstances. In case
at bar, this is not the case since the entire arrest was based on uncorroborated statement of a
concerned citizen.

The chain of custody as outlined in Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 was not observed as no
proper inventory, photographing, was done in the presence of the accused nor were there
representatives from the media, the DOJ and any popularly elected official present, although in
warrantless seizures, marking and photographing of evidence may be done at the nearest police
station.

5. Section 21 – CHAIN OF CUSTODY (see also RA 10640)

● People vs. Mallillin (The 4 Links)

● People vs. Santos

FACTS: Santos was charged before the RTC of Caloocan City with three (3) counts of violation of
certain provisions of R.A. No. 9165 for maintaining in his house at Caloocan City, a drug
den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs are habitually dispensed for use by the
customers and addicts, having in his possession, custody, and control Marijuana and a
plastic tube intended for sniffing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
CONTENTION OF STATE:

The prosecution tried to prove its cases against Santos through the testimony of Special Investigator
Elson Saul (Saul), Agents Jerome Bomediano (Bomediano), Henry Kanapi (Kanapi) and
Atty. Fatima Liwalug (Atty. Liwalug), all from the Reaction, Arrest and Interdiction
Division (RAID) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), and Nicanor Cruz, Jr.
(Cruz), of the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division (FCD).

The NBI conducted surveillance, where videos were taken of the buying, selling, and use of drugs in
the different houses on Tagaytay St.

During the first test-buy, Bomediano was able to buy shabu from Santos alias "Rolando Tabo” and
the informants were able to buy drugs from Santos and to use them inside his house.

DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED:

While Santos was alone at home playing his guitar, the NBI team armed with long firearms suddenly
arrived looking for a certain Roland Tabo. The team took Santos' money amounting to P140.00 and
his house was searched in the presence of a kagawad from Quezon City but the search team found
nothing so they brought out foil, lighters, and marijuana and took pictures.

RULING:
As opposed therefore, to the claim of Santos, there was no significant gap in the chain of custody of
the seized items.

Saul testified that after he gathered the drug paraphernalia and the marijuana which he confiscated
from Santos, he prepared the inventory of seized items/property in the presence of Santos, and
the respective representatives of the DOJ, media, and the barangay.

Anent the second and third links, on the same day that Saul arrived at the NBI RAID office after the
service of the search warrant, he forthwith prepared the disposition form for the turnover of the
seized items to the FCD

On the fourth link, both the prosecution and the defense had agreed to dispense with the testimony
of the forensic chemist upon stipulation on certain facts and the defense counsel had the opportunity
to cross-examine the forensic chemist but, as revealed by the records, his cross-examination never
dealt on matters pertaining to the measures carried out by the NBI team to maintain the integrity of
the confiscated items.

● People vs. Pringas, August 31, 2007

FACTS: Pringas was charged before the RTC of Pasig City with violations of Section 5,
11, and 12 of RA 9165. On 3 September 2004, Pringas, through counsel, appealed the
decision to the Court of Appeals via a Notice of Appeal, but was dismissed. He therefore
appealed his conviction before the court by way of notice of appeal. The appeal was accepted.

CONTENTION OF THE ACCUSED: He argues that the apprehending police officers’ failure to
comply with the provisions (Sections 21 and 86) of Republic Act No. 9165 casts doubt on the validity
of his arrest and the admissibility of the evidence allegedly seized from him. He maintains that since
the procurement of the evidence, both documentary and testimonial, during the buy-bust operation
was violative of said law and of his constitutional right against illegal arrest, the same should not
have been received in evidence to prove his guilt of being inadmissible under the law.

Appellant claims that the police officers violated Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 when the
alleged buy-bust operation that led to the apprehension of appellant was conducted without the
involvement of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). It is his contention that nowhere in
the Joint Affidavit of Arrest executed by the members of the arresting team was it shown that the
buy-bust operation was conducted with the assistance, coordination, knowledge or consent of the
PDEA.

As regards Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, appellant insists that non-compliance with
Section 21 regarding the custody and disposition of the confiscated/seized dangerous drugs
and paraphernalia, i.e., the taking of pictures and the making of an inventory, will make these
items inadmissible in evidence.

CONTENTION OF THE STATE: In the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, it is stated that "That, on or about
10:30 PM April 22, 2003, as instructed by SPO4 DANILO TUAÑO, OIC/SDEU, this Office effected a
coordination to (sic) Metro Manila Regional Office of PDEA and formed a team of SDEU operatives
with a confidential informant to conduct anti-narcotics/Buy-bust operation against the said person x x
x."This portion of the affidavit clearly negates appellant’s claim that the buy-bust operation subject of
the case was not with the involvement of the PDEA.
ISSUE: THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY
OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED DESPITE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE HAVING
BEEN OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 21 AND 86, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.

RULING: NO. Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the "lead agency" in
the investigations and prosecutions of drug-related cases. Therefore, other law enforcement
bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as illegal drugs
cases will eventually be transferred to the latter. Additionally, the same provision states that
PDEA, serving as the implementing arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board, ":shall be responsible
for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in the Act."

The challenged buy-bust operation, albeit made without the participation of PDEA, did not
violate appellant’s constitutional right to be protected from illegal arrest. There is nothing in
Republic Act No. 9165 which even remotely indicate the intention of the legislature to make an
arrest made without the participation of the PDEA illegal and evidence obtained pursuant to
such an arrest inadmissible. Moreover, the law did not deprive the PNP of the power to make
arrests.

Non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there
is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.Its
non-compliance will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from
him inadmissible. In the case under consideration, we find that the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the items involved were safeguarded. The seized/confiscated items were immediately
marked for proper identification. Thereafter, they were forwarded to the Crime Laboratory for
examination.