ATTY. ROMINAGRACE A.

YADAO
PP VS CALEXTO DUQUE FUNDALES
G.R. No. 184606 , SEPT. 2, 2012
“Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal
sale of [dangerous] drugs if the following elements are
present: (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
thereto.”
 Thus, it is of no moment that Forensic Chemical
Officer Mangalip was not presented as witness. The
non-presentation as witnesses of other persons
who had custody of the illegal drugs is not a
crucial point against the prosecution. “
 It is the prosecution which has the discretion as to how
to present its case and it has the right to choose
whom it wishes to present as witnesses.”
 What is important is that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drugs are properly
preserved as it had been so in this case.
The appellant, on the other hand, offers mere denial as
his defense. He claims that he was merely fixing a
washing machine at the time of the arrest and that the
alleged buy-bust operation was fictitious. However,
other than his own self-serving testimony, appellant
has not offered any evidence to support this claim. We
have held that “[a] bare denial is an inherently
weak defense x x x.”41 Appellant’s denial is
unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing
evidence. Between the positive and categorical
testimonies of the arresting officers on one hand,
and the unsubstantiated denial of the appellant
on the other, we are inclined to uphold the former
People of the Philippines v. Joselito Beran y
Zapanta, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
In People v. Pagaduan, the Supreme Court ruled that
proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal
prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs demands
that unwavering exactitude be observed in
establishing the corpus delicti, the body of the
crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.
The prosecution must establish by records or
testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit,
from the time it came into the possession of the police
officers until it was tested in the laboratory to
determine its composition, and all the way to the time
it is offered in evidence
 The Supreme Court (SC) had occasion to show the
unacceptability of the contention of the appellant that
the testimony of the poseur-buyer was absurd,
illogical, contrary to reason and highly incredible for
no person who is engaged in an illegal transaction
would leave the door of the house open after such
transaction. In case after case, SC observed that drug
pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective
customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as
in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, the drug
pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous
and, worse, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what
matters is not the existing familiarity between the
buyer and the seller or the time and venue of the
sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts
constituting the sale and the delivery of the
prohibited drugs.
PP VS POSADA GR NO. 194445,
March 12, 2012
Possession is a necessary element of in a prosecution
for illegal sale of prohibited drugs. It is indispensable
that the prohibited drug subject of the sale be
identified and presented in court. That the corpus
delicti of illegal sale could not be established
without a showing that the accused possessed,
sold and delivered a prohibited drug clearly
indicates that the possession is an element of the
former. The same rule is applicable in cases of
delivery of prohibited drugs giving them away to
another.
PEOPLE VS CLARIFE GR NO.
187157, February 15, 2012
The Supreme Court observed in many cases that drug
pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective
customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as
in public places, even in the daytime. Indeed, drug
pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous
and worse, openly defiant of the law. Hence, what
matters is not the time and venue of the sale, but
the fact of agreement and the acts constituting
sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.
SAN JUAN V PEOPLE GR NO.
177191 , MAY 30, 2011
The essential element of “transportation of drugs” is
the movement of the dangerous is the movement of
the dangerous drug from one place to another.
The prosecution failed to show that ay distance was
travelled by petitioner with the drugs in his
possession.
People of the Philippines v. Vicente
Rom, G.R. No. 198452, February 19, 2014
A drug den is a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated
drugs are used in any form or are found. Its existence may be
proved not only by direct evidence but may also be
established by proof of facts and circumstances, including
evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its
general reputation among police officers. In this case, this
fact was proven by none other than the testimony of PO2
Martinez, the poseur-buyer, who after buying the shabu had told
the appellant that he wanted to sniff the same to which the latter
responded by requiring the former to pay a rental fee of P10.00.
The appellant, thereafter, allowed PO2 Martinez to enter his
house and directed him to proceed to one of the rooms located
at the right side of the sala. Upon entering the said room, PO2
Martinez saw three other persons already sniffing shabu.
BUENAVENTURA V PEOPLE
GR NO. 171578, AUG. 8, 2007
Possession may be actual or constructive. In order to
establish the constructive possession, the People must
prove that petitioner had dominion or control on
either the substance or the premises were found. The
State must prove the adequate nexus between the
accused and the prohibited substance. Possession
of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie
evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of
any satisfactory explanation of such possession.
DAVID V PEOPLE, GR NO. 181861
OCTOBER 17, 2011
 An accused may only be convicted of a single offense of
possession of dangerous drugs if he was caught in
possession of different kinds of dangerous drugs in a
single occassion.
PEOPLE VS MARTINEZ
GR. NO 191366, DEC. 13, 2010
 In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to
rehabilitate drug users, the Supreme Court calls on law
enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to
exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the
presence of dangerous drugs is only and solely in
the form of residue and the confirmatory test
required under Section 15 is positive for use of
dangerous drugs.
JAIME DELA CRUZ VS PP
G.R. No. 200748 July 23, 2014
In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs
was only in the form of residue on the drug
paraphernalia, and the accused were found positive for
use of dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest was legal,
the evidence obtained admissible, and the chain of custody
intact, the law enforcers should have filed charges under
Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs and, if
there was no residue at all, they should have been
charged under Sec. 14 (Possession of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or
Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the maximum penalty
under Sec. 12(Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs)
shall be imposed on any person who shall possess any
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia
for dangerous drugs.
PEOPLE VS MARIACOS
GR NO. 188611, JUNE 16, 2010
 Moreover, appellant’s possession of the packages
containing illegal drugs gave rise to the
disputable presumption that she is the owner of
the packages and their contents. Appellant failed to
rebut the presumption thus her uncorroborated claim
of lack of knowledge that she had prohibited drug in
her possession.
PP VS KAMAD GR NO. 174198
JANUARY 19, 2010
 The following links must be established in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust operation:
 First,the seizure and marking if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
team
 Second, the turn-over of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer
 Third, the turn-over by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination
 Fourth, the turn-over and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
PEOPLE VS FLORENDO, GR NO.
199219, APRIL 3, 2013
 There is nothing in the or its implementing rules of
RA 9165 which requires the presence of the elected
public official during the buy-bust operation. It is
enough that he is present during the physical
inventory immediately conducted after the seizure and
confiscation of the drugs and he signs the copies of the
inventory and is given a copy thereof.
PEOPLE VS MAGAT GR NO. 179939
September 29, 2008
 While the seized drugs may be admitted in evidence, it
does not necessarily follow that the same should be
given evidentiary weight if the procedure in Section 21,
RA 9165 was not complied with. The court stresses
that the admissibility of the seized dangerous
drugs in evidence should not equated with its
probative value in proving the corpus delicti. The
admissibility evidence depends on its relevance and
competence while the weight of evidence pertains to
evidence already admitted and its tendency to
convince and persuade.
PEOPLE VS SITCO GR NO 178202
MAY 14, 2010
 The saving clause/mechanism ensures that not every
case of non-compliance will permanently prejudice the
prosecution’s case. However, it applies only when
the prosecution recognizes and explains the lapse
in the prescribed procedures.
 PP VS PASCUA
G.R. No. 194580, August 31, 2011
We had occasion to rule that “not all people who
came into contact with the seized drugs are
required to testify in court. There is nothing in
Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the
same that imposes such requirement. As long as the
chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly
established not to have been broken and that the
prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs
seized, it is not indispensable that each and every
person who came into possession of the drugs should
take the witness stand.”
PEOPLE VS NATHANIEL PASION Y DELA CRUZ A.K.A.
“ATHAN” AND DENNIS MICHAEL PAZ Y SIBAYAN
G.R. No. 203026, January 28, 2015
In any criminal prosecution, the defenses of denial and
frame-up, like alibi, are considered weak defenses and have
been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for
they can just as easily be concocted but are difficult to
prove. Negative in their nature, bare denials and
accusations of frame-up cannot, as a rule, prevail over
the affirmative testimonies of truthful witnesses.
In such cases, the testimonies of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operations are generally accorded
full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of
regularity in the performance of public duties. Hence, when
lined up against an unsubstantiated denial or claim of
frame-up, the testimonies of the officers who caught the
accused red-handed are given more weight and usually
prevail.
 In order to overcome the presumption of regularity,
jurisprudence teaches us that there must be clear and
convincing evidence that the police officers did not
properly perform their duties or that they were
prompted with ill motive.

While the defense denied having violated [R.A. No. 9165], it

offered no evidence that the arresting officers had been
improperly or maliciously motivated in effecting the arrest
of appellants.

W[e] find the story of appellant Pasion incredible that 11

armed men just instantly barged into their house to arrest
him and thereafter decided to likewise apprehend his
friend appellant Paz.
PEOPLE VS DITONA GR NO. 189841
DECEMBER 15, 2010
 While the RTC noted that SPO1 Flores and PO3
Ventura placed their initials “AF” and “NV” on the
seized drugs, they did not identify the markings as
theirs during their direct testimonies nor did they
testify when and where they made such markings.
 Poor handling and preservation of the integrity of
evidence show lack of professionalism and waste
the time that the courts could use for hearing and
adjudicating other cases.