DeLima vs Guerrero Merit in front of the notary public.

Such clear
breach of notarial protocol is highly
Issues:
censurable36 as Section 6, Rule II of the 2004
Procedural Issues: Rules on Notarial Practice requires the affiant,
petitioner De Lima in this case, to sign the
A Whether or not petitioner is excused from instrument or document in the presence of
compliance with the doctrine on hierarchy of the notary De Lima failed to sign the
courts considering that the petition should Verification and Certification against Forum
first be filed with the Court of Appeals. Shopping in the presence of the notary, she
B. Whether or not the pendency of the has likewise failed to properly swear under
Motion to Quash the Information before the oath the contents thereof, thereby rendering
trial court renders the instant petition false and null the jurat and invalidating the
premature. Verification and Certification against Forum
Shopping. Without the presence of the notary
C. Whether or not petitioner, in filing the upon the signing of the Verification and
present petition, violated the rule against Certification against Forum Shopping, there is
forum shopping given the pendency of the no assurance that the petitioner swore under
Motion to Quash the Information before the oath that the allegations in the petition have
Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City in been made in good faith or are true and
Criminal Case No. 17-165 and the Petition for correct, and not merely speculative.
Certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals in
C.A. G.R. SP No. 149097, assailing the PETITIONER DISREGARDED THE HIERARCHY
preliminary investigation conducted by the OF COURTS
DOJ Panel. the rule on hierarchy of courts is an important
Substantive Issues: component of the orderly administration of
justice and not imposed merely for whimsical
A. Whether the Regional Trial Court or the and arbitrary reasons. well-defined exceptions
Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts.
violation of Republic Act No. 9165 averred in Immediate resort to this Court may be
the assailed Information. allowed when any of the following grounds
B. Whether or not the respondent gravely are present: (1) when genuine issues of
abused her discretion in finding probable constitutionality are raised that must be
cause to issue the Warrant of Arrest against addressed immediately; (2) when the case
petitioner. involves transcendental importance; (3) when
the case is novel; (4) when the constitutional
C. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a issues raised are better decided by this Court;
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Status (5) when time is of the essence; ( 6) when the
Quo Ante Order in the interim until the instant subject of review involves acts of a
petition is resolved or until the trial court rules constitutional organ; (7) when there is no
on the Motion to Quash. other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law; (8) when the petition
includes questions that may affect public
Ruling welfare, public policy, or demanded by the
broader interest of justice; (9) when the order
It is immediately clear that petitioner De Lima
complained of was a patent nullity; and
did not sign the Verification and Certification
against Forum Shopping and Affidavit of (10) when the appeal was considered as an
inappropriate remedy. Unfortunately, none of
these exceptions were sufficiently established
in the present petition so as to convince this
In Montilla v. Hilario,32 this Court described
court to brush aside the rules on the hierarchy
the "offense committed in relation to the
of courts. This Court cannot thus allow a
office" as:
precedent allowing public officers assailing the
finding of probable cause for the issuance of [T]he relation between the crime and the
arrest warrants to be brought directly to this office contemplated by the Constitution is, in
Court, bypassing the appellate court, without our opinion, direct and not accidental. To fall
any compelling reason. into the intent of the Constitution, the relation
has to be such that, in the legal sense, the
offense cannot exist without the office. In
THE PRESENT PETITION IS PREMATURE other words, the office must be a constituent
element of the crime as defined in the statute,
Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and
such as, for instance, the crimes defined and
prohibiting respondent judge from conducting
punished in Chapter Two to Six, Title Seven, of
further proceedings until and unless the
the Revised Penal Code.
Motion to Quash is resolved with finality;
Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the
parties to the status prior to the issuance of
Public office is not of the essence of murder.
the Order and Warrant of Arrest, both dated
The taking of human life is either murder or
February 23, 201 7, thereby recall inf both homicide whether done by a private citizen or
processes and restoring petitioner to her public servant, and the penalty is the same
liberty and freedom except when the perpetrator, being a public
functionary took advantage of his office, as
In the palpable absence of a ruling on the
alleged in this case, in which event the penalty
Motion to Quash -- which puts the jurisdiction
is increased.
of the lower court in issue -- there is no
controversy for this Court to resolve; there is
simply no final judgment or order of the lower
But the use or abuse of office does not adhere
court to review, revise, reverse, modify, or
to the crime as an element; and even as an
affirm. As per the block letter provision of the
aggravating circumstance, its materiality arises
Constitution, this Court cannot exercise its
not from the allegations but on the proof, not
jurisdiction in a vacuum nor issue a definitive
from the fact that the criminals are public
ruling on mere suppositions.
officials but from the manner of the
commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied)

G.R. No. L-4922 September 24, 1951

Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No.

128096, January 20, 1999
MANUEL MONTILLA, as Provincial Fiscal of
Ilocos Sur, and FAUSTINO S. TOBIA, SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
petitioners,
FACTS:
vs.

HON. ZOILO HILARIO, as District Judge of the

On 18 May 1995, 11 members of the Kuratong
Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, and HON.
Baleleng gang, were killed along
FLORO CRISOLOGO, respondents
Commonwealth Ave., QC by the Anti-Bank
Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG) enacted to law which deletes the word
headed by Chief Supt. Jewel Canson of PNP. “principal” from the phrase “principal
One of the components of ABRITG is the accused”. Thus, the Sandiganbayan takes
Presidential Anti-Crime Commission-Task cognizance again of the case.
Force Habagat (PACC-TFH) headed by
petitioner Chief Supt. Panfilo Lacson.
Lacson now questions the constitutionality of
Secs. 4 and 7 of R.A. 8249 because the
SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes told the media that provisions are: (a) introduced by the Congress
what happened was a summary execution (or in bad faith, (b) ex post facto legislation and
a rub out) and not a shoot-out between the (c) misleading as to the law’s title. The OSG
Kuratong Baleleng gang members and the asserts otherwise.
ABRITG.

ISSUES:
Omb. Aniano Desierto formed a panel of
investigators headed by the Deputy Omb. for
Military Affairs, Bienvenido Blancaflor, to 1. Whether or not RA 8249 is constitutional.
investigate the incident. This panel found that (YES)
the incident was a legitimate police operation.
However, a review board led by Overall 2. Whether or not Sandiganbayan has
Deputy Omb. Francisco Villa recommended jurisdiction. (NO)
the indictment for multiple murder against 26
respondents, including Lacson.
HELD:

Lacson was among those charged as principal

in information for murder before the 1. RA 8249 is constitutional.
Sandiganbayan. All the accused filed separate
motions questioning its jurisdiction.
The Court mainly stresses that the provisions
are CONSTITUTIONAL because: (a) there is
Sandiganbayan ordered the cases transferred presumption of validity of laws and no
to the QC RTC which has original and exclusive showing that the Congress pinpointed solely
jurisdiction under RA 7975 (An Act to the petitioners which would amount to a
Strengthen the Functional and Structural violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection
Organization of the Sandiganbayan, Amending clause, (b) using the doctrine in Calder v. Bull,
for that Purpose PD 1606, as Amended), as the same is not an ex post facto legislation
none of the principal accused has the rank of and lastly, (c) law’s title is comprehensive
PNP Chief Supt. or higher (Lacson is NOT a enough to fit in the one-title-one-subject
PNP Chief Supt.) provision of the Constitution.

The Office of the Special Prosecutor moved for

a reconsideration. While it is pending, RA 2. Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction.
8249 (An Act Further Defining thr Jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan, Amending for the
Purpose PD 1606, as Amended, Providing
Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes) was
It’s QC RTC that has jurisdiction. The between of law, not a factual averment that
jurisdiction of a court is defined by the would show the close intimacy between the
Constitution or statute. The elements of that offense charged and the discharge of the
definition must appear in the complaint or accused’s official duties.
information so as to ascertain which court has
jurisdiction over a case. Hence the elementary
rule that the jurisdiction of a court is What is controlling is the specific factual
determined by the allegations in the allegations in the information that would
complaint or information,and not by the indicate the close intimacy between the
evidence presented by the parties at the trial. discharge of the accused’s official duties and
the commission of the offense charged, in
order to qualify the crime as having been
The multiple murder charge falls under committed in relation to public office.
Section 4(b) of R.A. 8249, which requires that
the offense charged must be committed by
the offender in relation to his office in order EDUARDO A. ALARILLA v. SANDIGANBAYAN,
for the Sandiganbayan to have jurisdiction GR No. 136806, 2000-08-22
over it.

Facts:
An offense is said to have been committed in
relation to the office if it (the offense) is
‘intimately connected’ with the office of the On December 1, 1995, the Office of the
offender and perpetrated while he was in the Ombudsman, acting through the Office of the
performance of his official functions. Special Prosecutor, filed an information[3]
with the Sandiganbayan charging petitioner
Eduardo A. Alarilla with the crime of grave
While the information states that Lacson, et al threats as defined in Article 282 of the
committed the crime of murder in relation to
their public office, there is, however, no
specific allegation of facts that the shooting of Revised Penal Code. On the same day, a
the victim by the said principal accused was second information[4] was filed charging
intimately related to the discharge of their petitioner of having violated section 3 (e) of
official duties as police officers. Likewise, the Republic Act No. 3019. These informations
amended information does NOT indicate that were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 23069
the said accused arrested and investigated the and 23070, respectively.
victim and then killed the latter while in their
custody.

While there is the allegation in the amended

information that the said accessories
committed the offense “in relation to office as
officers and members of the (PNP),” the Court
do not see the intimate connection between
the offense charged and the accused’s official
functions. That phrase is merely a conclusion
the trial of Criminal Case No. 23069 The resolution of a demurrer to evidence
proceeded. On May 19, 1998, after the should be left to the exercise of sound judicial
prosecution had completed the presentation discretion. A lower court's order of denial shall
of its evidence, petitioner filed a demurrer to not be disturbed, that is, the appellate courts
evidence[15] on the ground that the will not review the prosecution's evidence and
prosecution had failed to prove that he had... precipitately decide whether or not such...
committed the crime charged in the evidence has established the guilt of the
information and that the act complained of accused beyond a reasonable doubt, unless
took place while he was performing his official accused has established that such judicial
functions. discretion has been gravely abused, thereby
amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction.
[29] Mere allegations of such abuse will... not
In a resolution[16] dated July 28, 1998, the suffice. For the special civil action of certiorari
Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's demurrer to lie, it is crucial that
to evidence.

…there must be a capricious, arbitrary and

Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was whimsical exercise of power, the very
similarly denied by the Sandiganbayan in its antithesis of judicial prerogative in accordance
December 17, 1998 resolution with centuries of both civil law and common
law traditions. To warrant the issuance of the
extraordinary writ of certiorari, the alleged...
Issues: lack of jurisdiction, excess thereof, or abuse of
discretion must be so gross or grave, as when
power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
WHETHER OR NOT THE FIRST DIVISION OF THE manner by reason of passion, prejudice or
SANDIGANBAYAN ACTED WITHOUT OR IN personal hostility, or the abuse must be so
EXCESS OF ITS JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE patent as to amount to an evasion of
ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING positive... duty, or to a virtual refusal to
PETITIONER'S DEMURRER TO EVIDENCE. perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at
all, in contemplation of law.

Ruling:
When there is no showing of such grave
abuse, certiorari is not the proper remedy.[31]
Rather, the appropriate recourse from an
petitioner claims that the elements
order denying a demurrer to evidence is for
constituting the crime of grave threats have
the court to proceed with the trial, after which
not been proven. He insists that the
the accused may file an... appeal from the
prosecution had not established that his act of
judgment of the lower court rendered after
pointing a gun at complainant Simeon Legaspi,
such trial.[32] In the present case, we are not
assuming that it had actually... occurred,
prepared to rule that the Sandiganbayan has
constituted grave threats.[27] However, quite
gravely abused its discretion when it denied
to the contrary, the Sandiganbayan found that
petitioner's demurrer to evidence. Public
the prosecution's evidence, standing
respondent found... that the prosecution's
unrebutted by any opposing evidence,
evidence satisfactorily established the
sufficiently established the crime charged.
elements of the crime charged.
Correspondingly, there is nothing in the Section 1. Scope. -- This rule shall govern the
records of this case nor in the pleadings of procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts,
petitioner that would show otherwise. the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases:

Principles:
B. Criminal Cases:

LUZ M. ZALDIVIA v. ANDRES B. REYES, GR No.

102342, 1992-07-03 1. Violations of traffic laws, rules and
regulations;

Facts:
2. Violations of rental law;

The petitioner is charged with quarrying for

commercial purposes without a mayor's 3. Violations of municipal or city
permit in violation of Ordinance No. 2, Series ordinances;
of 1988, of the Municipality of Rodriguez, in
the Province of Rizal.
4. All other criminal cases where the
penalty prescribed by law for the offense
The offense was allegedly committed on May charged does not exceed six months
11, 1990 imprisonment, or a fine of one thousand
pesos

The referral-complaint of the police was

received by the Office of the Provincial (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other
Prosecutor of Rizal on May 30, 1990.[2] imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise,
or of the civil liability arising therefrom. x x x"
(Emphasis supplied.)
The corresponding information was filed with
the Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez on
October 2, 1990. Section 9. How commenced. The prosecution
of criminal cases falling within the scope of
this Rule shall be either by complaint or by
The petitioner moved to quash the information filed directly in court without
information on the ground that the crime had need of a prior preliminary examination or
prescribed, but the motion was denied. preliminary investigation:

the petitioner first argues that the charge

against her is governed by the following
provisions of the Rule on Summary Procedure:
Provided, however, That in Metropolitan the applicable law specifying the prescriptive
Manila and chartered cities, such cases shall period for violations of municipal ordinances.
be commenced only by information; Provided,
further, That when the offense cannot be
prosecuted de oficio, the corresponding Ruling:
complaint shall be signed and sworn to before
the fiscal by... the offended party.
That section meaningfully begins with the
phrase, "for offenses not subject to the rule
She then invokes Act No. 3326, as amended, on summary procedure in special cases,"
entitled "An Act to Establish Periods of which plainly signifies that the section does
Prescription for Violations Penalized by Special not apply to offenses which are subject to
Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide summary procedure. The phrase "in all cases"
When Prescription Shall Begin to Run," appearing in... the last paragraph obviously
refers to the cases covered by the Section,
that is, those offenses not governed by the
Section 1. Violations penalized by special acts Rule on Summary Procedure.
shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts,
prescribe in accordance with the following
rules: x x x Violations penalized by municipal As it is clearly provided in the Rule on
ordinances shall prescribe after two months. Summary Procedure that among the offenses
it covers are violations of municipal or city
ordinances, it should follow that the charge
Section 2. Prescription shall begin to run from against the petitioner, which is for violation of
the day of the commission of the violation of a municipal ordinance of Rodriguez, is
the law, and if the same be not known at the governed by... that rule... the Court feels that
time, from the discovery thereof and the if there be a conflict between the Rule on
institution of judicial proceedings for its Summary Procedure and Section 1 of Rule 110
investigation and... punishment. of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the
former should prevail as the special law. And if
there be a conflict between Act No. 3326 and
The prescription shall be interrupted when Rule 110 of the Rules... on Criminal Procedure,
proceedings are instituted against the guilty the latter must again yield because this Court,
person, and shall begin to run again if the in the exercise of its rule-making power, is not
proceedings are dismissed for reasons not allowed to "diminish, increase or modify
constituting jeopardy. substantive rights"... the instant case is for
violation of a municipal ordinance, for which
the penalty cannot exceed six months,[8] and
Section 3. For the purposes of this Act, special is thus covered by the
acts shall be acts defining and penalizing
violations of law not included in the Penal
Code." (Emphasis supplied) Rule on Summary Procedure.

Issues: under the above interpretation, a crime may

prescribe even if the complaint is filed
seasonably with the prosecutor's office if,
intentionally or not, he delays the institution CA affirmed and further held that the offense
of the necessary judicial proceedings until its had already prescribed.
too late.

Issues:
Our conclusion is that the prescriptive period
for the crime imputed to the petitioner
commenced from its alleged commission on (1) Whether or not the action had prescribed.
May 11, 1990, and ended two months
thereafter, on July 11, 1990, in accordance
with Section 1 of Act No. 3326. (2) Whether or not there is copyright
infringement.

It was not interrupted by the filing... of the

complaint with the Office of the Provincial Ruling:
Prosecutor on May 30, 1990, as this was not a
judicial proceeding. The judicial proceeding
that could have interrupted the period was (1) NO. Section 2 of Act 3326 provides that the
the filing of the information with the prescriptive period for violation of special laws
Municipal Trial Court of Rodriguez, but this starts on the day such offense was committed
was done... only on October 2, 1990, after the and is interrupted by the institution of
crime had already prescribed. proceedings against respondent (i.e., the
accused). Petitioner in this instance filed its
complaint-affidavit 1 year, 10 months and 4
Sanrio Company Limited v. Lim (G.R. No. days after the NBI searched respondent’s
168662) premises and seized Sanrio merchandise
Date: June 9, 2016Author: jaicdn therefrom. Although no information was
immediately filed in court, respondent’s
0 Comments alleged violation had not yet prescribed. In the
recent case of Brillantes v. Court of Appeals,
Facts:
we affirmed that the filing of the complaint for
purposes of preliminary investigation
interrupts the period of prescription of
Petitioner Sanrio Company, a Japanese
criminal responsibility. Thus, the prescriptive
corporation, is the copyright owner of various
period for the prosecution of the alleged
animated characters sold locally by its
violation of the IPC was tolled by petitioner’s
exclusive distributor, Gift Gate Incorporated,
timely filing of the complaint-affidavit before
which allowed local entities to manufacture
the TAPP.
petitioner’s products. A search warrant was
issued against respondent Lim alleged to be
selling imitations of petitioner’s products.
(2) NO. To be criminally liable for violation of
Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint for
Section 217.3 of the IPC, the following
copyright infringement with the Task-Force on
requisites must be present:
Anti-Intellectual Property Piracy (TAPP) of the
DOJ. Respondent asserted that he obtained
his merchandise from petitioner’s authorized
manufacturers. The complaint was dismissed. possession of the infringing copy and
knowledge or suspicion that the copy is an by [petitioner], filed a notice of appeal which
infringement of the genuine article. was denied by the trial court. We affirmed the
denial of the notice of appeal filed in behalf of
The prosecutors in this case consistently found
accused. The appellate court further held that
that no probable cause existed against
to allow an employer to dispute
respondent for violation of the IPC. The TAPP
independently the civil liability fixed in the
found that: Evidence on record would show
criminal case against the accused-employee
that respondent bought his merchandise from
would be to amend, nullify or defeat a final
legitimate sources. While it appears that some
judgment. Since the notice of appeal filed by
of the items seized during the search are not
the accused had already been dismissed by
among those products which [GGI] authorized
the CA, then the judgment of conviction and
these establishments to produce, the fact
the award of civil liability became final and
remains that respondent bought these from
executory. Included in the civil liability of the
the abovecited legitimate sources. At this
accused was the employers subsidiary liability.
juncture, it bears stressing that respondent
ISSUE: Whether or not an employer, who
relied on the representations of these
dutifully participated in the defense of its
manufacturers and distributors that the items
accused-employee, may appeal the judgment
they sold were genuine. As such, it is not
of conviction independently of the accused
incumbent upon respondent to verify from
HELD: Appeal by the Accused Who Jumps Bail
these sources what items [GGI] only
The accused cannot be accorded the right to
authorized them to produce. Thus, as far as
appeal unless they voluntarily submit to the
respondent is concerned, the items in his
jurisdiction of the court or are otherwise
possession are not infringing copies of the
arrested within 15 days from notice of the
original [petitioner’s] products.
judgment against them.[15] While at large,
they cannot seek relief from the court, as they
are deemed to have waived the appeal. The
4. PHILIPPINE RABIT VS PEOPLE FACTS: On July accused-employee has escaped and refused to
27, 1994, accused [Napoleon Roman y surrender to the proper authorities; thus, he is
Macadangdang] was found guilty and deemed to have abandoned his appeal.
convicted of the crime of reckless imprudence Consequently, the judgment against him has
resulting to triple homicide, multiple physical become final and executory Civil Liability
injuries and damage to property and was Deemed Instituted in the Criminal Prosecution
sentenced to suffer the penalty of four (4) Only the civil liability of the accused arising
years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days to from the crime charged is deemed impliedly
six (6) years, and to pay damages to the heirs, instituted in a criminal action. What is
hospital bill, to La Union Electric Company as deemed instituted in every criminal
the registered owner of the Toyota Hi-Ace Van prosecution is the civil liability arising from the
and to the owner of the jeepney. The court crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto),
further ruled that [petitioner], in the event of but not those liabilities arising from quasi-
the insolvency of accused, shall be liable for delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. Petitioner
the civil liabilities of the accused. Evidently, argues that, as an employer, it is considered a
the judgment against accused had become party to the criminal case and is conclusively
final and executory. Admittedly, accused had bound by the outcome thereof. Consequently,
jumped bail and remained atlarge. It is worth petitioner must be accorded the right to
mention[ing] that Section 8, Rule 124 of the pursue the case to its logical conclusion --
Rules of Court authorizes the dismissal of including the appeal. The argument has no
appeal when appellant jumps bail. Counsel for merit. To allow employers to dispute the civil
accused, also admittedly hired and provided liability fixed in a criminal case would enable
them to amend, nullify or defeat a final II. Whether or not the court a quo gravely
judgment rendered by a competent court. erred in convicting the accused-appelants
despite the prosecution's failure to prove their
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
People v. Posada

Facts:
Held:
Accused-appellants Roger Posada and Emily
On the first factual issue, the Court found that
Posada were convicted by the RTC Branch 43,
the records of the case and the testimonies of
Virac, Catanduanes, in Criminal Case No. 3490
witnesses belie the accused-appellants'
for selling 12 pieces of transparent sealed
contention.
plastic sachet, containing Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu with a total weight of
0.4578 grams, in violation of Section 5, Article
Based on the records, the buy-bust operation,
II of R.A. No. 9165.
the arrest of the accused-appellants and the
confiscation of the illegal items happened at
around 12 noon of August 3, 2005. PO1 Area
Roger was also convicted by the same RTC in
received from Emily one sachet of shabu and
Criminal Case No. 3489 for possession of one
after PO1 Area introduced himself and
piece of torn plastic sachet, containing residue
arrested Emily, 12 more sachets of shabu were
of a crystalline substance (allegedly shabu), a
found in the possession of Emily. The said 12
piece of small aluminum foil, a pair of small
sachets of shabu were inside a coin purse,
scissors, and 15 pieces of used lighter all of
with a bundle of money. PO1 Area prepared
which are intended to be used for smoking or
on the same day an RPS in the presence of
introducing dangerous drugs into the body of
Asuncion, Kagawad Sarmiento and Vargas. On
a person, in violation of Section 12, Article II of
August 4, 2005, P/CI Tria requested for a
R.A. No. 9165.
laboratory examination of a piece of small size
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet,
containing white crystalline substance marked
Aggrieved by the RTC Decision, the accused- with initial R; 12 pieces of small size heat-
appellants filed an appeal before the Court of sealed transparent plastic sachets, containing
Appeals (CA) which, via a Decision dated June white crystalline substance with sub-markings
17, 2010, affirmed the RTC Decision as to the R-1 to R-12; and one small size crumpled
accused-appellants' conviction in Criminal aluminum foil and small size plastic sachet.
Case No. 3490 but acquitted Roger in Criminal The request of P/CI Tria for laboratory
Case No. 3489 on the ground of reasonable examination dated August 4, 2005 was
doubt. received by PO2 Abanio and P/Insp. Sta. Cruz
on the same date.

Issue:

I. Whether or not the trial court gravely erred Nothing in it would show that P/CI Tria
in convicting the accused-appellants submitted the alleged illegal drugs beyond the
notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to 24-hour reglementary period. In fact, even the
establish the chain of custody and integrity of Laboratory Examination Request dated August
the alleged seized illegal items. 4, 2005 does not indicate violation of Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165. Clearly, from the
foregoing, the accused-appellants failed to
adduce any evidence to prove their appellants received one piece of small size
contention. The age-old but familiar rule that heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with
he who alleges must prove his allegation marking R, 12 pieces small size heat-sealed
applies in this case. The accused-appellants' marked as R-1 to R-12 and one small size
failure to show evidence that the police crumpled aluminum foil and small size plastic
officers did not comply with Section 21 of R.A. sachet totaling to 15 items. PSI Clemen's
No. 9165 gives us no other recourse but to testimony tallies with the Laboratory
respect the findings of trial court and of the Examination Request of P/CI Tria.
CA.

Evidence shows no discrepancy as to the

CA is correct in giving credence to the number of plastic sachets recovered from the
testimonies of the police officers as regards accused-appellants and those submitted to
the timely submission of the subject illegal forensic chemist PSI Clemen.
drugs since they are presumed to have
regularly performed their duties, unless there
is evidence suggesting ill-motive on the part of The prosecution has established the chain of
the police officers. In this case, the accused- custody and integrity of the seized illegal
appellants failed to contradict the items.
presumption. What goes against the accused-
appellants is the fact that they have not
offered any evidence of ill-motive against the After PO1 Area arrested Emily and confiscated
police officers. Emily even admitted that she the 13 sachets of shabu (one bought by PO1
did not know PO1 Area, the poseur-buyer. Area from Emily and 12 found in Emily's coin
Considering that there was no existing purse after she received the same from her
relationship between the police officers and husband Roger), P/CI Tria took pictures of the
the accused-appellants, the former could not incident using his cellphone while the official
be accused of improper motive to falsely photographer was also taking pictures. Then
testify against the accused-appellants. In PO1 Area prepared an RPS, which Asuncion,
People v. Dumangay, the Court upheld the Sarmiento and Vargas witnessed. Meanwhile,
findings of the lower court on the SPO1 Aldave, seizing officer went inside the
presumption of regularity in the performance house of the accused-appellants, prepared
of official duties because there was no proof and signed an RPS after the raiding team
of ill-motive. Therein, the accused-appellants found a piece of aluminum foil, one plastic
self-serving and uncorroborated defenses did sachet containing residue of white crystalline
not prevail over the trial court's findings on substance, one small pair of green scissors
the credibility of witnesses. The same may be beside the bed inside a room, 15 pieces of
said in the present case. used lighters, and two pieces of P50.00 bill
and one piece of P100.00 bill. Asuncion,
Arcilla and Gonzales witnessed the
On the second factual issue, the Court found preparation and signing of the said RPS.
the accused-appellants' claim not supported Thereafter, on August 4, 2005, P/CI Tria
by evidence. requested for a laboratory examination of a
piece of small size heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet, containing white crystalline
A review of the defense-quoted testimony of substance; 12 pieces of small size heat sealed
PSI Clemen would show that accused- transparent plastic sachets, containing white
crystalline; and one small size crumpled In the instant case, the prosecution was able
aluminum foil and small size plastic sachet. to present, not only the corpus delicti, but the
The request of P/CI Tria for laboratory testimonies of the people involved in each link
examination dated August 4, 2005 was in the chain of custody.
received by a certain PO2 Abanio and P/Insp.
Sta. Cruz. Subsequently, witness PSI Clemen,
the forensic expert, received personally from The prosecution failed to prove beyond
PO2 Abanio the above-mentioned marked reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants
pieces of evidence. She then immediately sold 12 sachets of shabu, but it has proven the
conducted a laboratory examination, yielding accused-appellants' guilt beyond reasonable
a result that the 12 pieces of plastic sachets, doubt of possession of the same number of
the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of
with marking R and the one aluminum foil R.A. No. 9165.
strip contained methamphetamine
hydrochloride. In open court, the above-
mentioned pieces of evidence were identified There was a discrepancy in the Information for
and marked. Criminal Case No. 3490. In the said
information, the accused-appellants were
charged for selling 12 pieces of transparent
From the foregoing, the prosecution, without sealed plastic sachet of shabu. However,
an iota of doubt, has established the chain of based on the evidence which the prosecution
custody and integrity of the seized illegal adduced, Emily sold to PO1 Area one sachet of
items. The Supreme Court in People v. shabu, which was worth P250.00. Then, after
Sanchez, clearly discussed how chain of she handed the one sachet of shabu to the
custody should be proven, to wit: poseur-buyer, Emily received additional 12
sachets of shabu from her husband Roger and
As a method of authenticating evidence, the
when PO1 Area informed the couple of the
chain of custody rule requires that the
buy-bust, Emily had in her possession the 12
admission of an exhibit be preceded by
sachets of shabu. Subsequently, the
evidence sufficient to support a finding that
confiscated sachets of shabu were marked.
the matter in question is what the proponent
The one sold to PO1 Area was marked with R,
claims it to be. It would include testimony
while the 12 sachets of shabu Roger handed
about every link in the chain, from the
to Emily before their arrest were marked as R-
moment the item was picked up to the time it
1 to R-12.
is offered into evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in The unfortunate fact of this case is that rather
the witness' possession, the condition in than separately charging Emily for the sale of
which it was received and the condition in the one sachet of shabu and charging both
which it was delivered to the next link in the Emily and Roger for possession of the 12
chain. These witnesses would then describe sachets of shabu, the public prosecutor
the precautions taken to ensure that there lumped the charges together to sale of 12
had been no change in the condition of the sachets of shabu. This is wrong. The
item and no opportunity for someone not in Information is defective for charging the
the chain to have possession of the same. accused-appellants of selling 12 sachets of
shabu when, in fact, they should have been
charged of selling one sachet of shabu and
possessing 12 sachets of shabu. From the choice but to acquit the accused-appellants of
evidence adduced, Emily and Roger never sold sale of 12 sachets of shabu.
the 12 sachets of shabu. They possessed
them. Thus, they should have not been
convicted for selling the 12 sachets of shabu. Truly, both the trial court and the CA were
However, this was exactly what was done both wrong in convicting the couple for selling 12
by the trial court and the CA. Without basis in sachets of shabu because the prosecution
fact, they convicted the couple for selling the failed to show that the husband and wife had
12 sachets of shabu. indeed sold the 12 sachets of shabu. Section
5, Article II of R.A. 9165 provides:

SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration,

Indeed, it must be pointed out that the
Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
prosecution filed a defective Information. An
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Information is fatally defective when it is clear
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
that it does not really charge an offense or
The penalty of life imprisonment to death and
when an essential element of the crime has
a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand
not been sufficiently alleged. In the instant
pesos ([P]500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
case, while the prosecution was able to allege
([P]10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
the identity of the buyer and the seller, it
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
failed to particularly allege or identify in the
sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give
Information the subject matter of the sale or
away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit
the corpus delicti. We must remember that
or transport any dangerous drug, including
one of the essential elements to convict a
any and all species of opium poppy regardless
person of sale of prohibited drugs is to
of the quantity and purity involved, or shall
identify with certainty the corpus delicti. Here,
act as a broker in any of such transactions.
the prosecution took the liberty to lump
together two sets of corpora delicti when it
should have separated the two in two
different informations. To allow the More, jurisprudence holds that the
prosecution to do this is to deprive the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs
accused-appellants of their right to be can only be successful when the following
informed, not only of the nature of the elements are established, namely:
offense being charged, but of the essential
element of the offense charged; and in this
case, the very corpus delicti of the crime. (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object and consideration of the sale; and

Furthermore, when ambiguity exists in the

complaint or information, the court has no (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
other recourse but to resolve the ambiguity in payment therefore.
favor of the accused. Here, since there exists
ambiguity as to the identity of corpus delicti,
an essential element of the offense charged, it To our minds, while there was indeed a
follows that such ambiguity must be resolved transaction between Emily and PO1 Area, the
in favor of the accused-appellants. Thus, from prosecution failed to show that the subject
the foregoing discussion, we have no other matter of the sale to PO1 Area was the 12
sachets of shabu. Based on the testimony of
PO1 Area, the 12 sachets of shabu were the
sachets of shabu which Roger handed to his prove the existence of the sale of the 12
wife Emily and were not sold, but which PO1 sachets of shabu and also to prove that the 12
Area found in her possession after the latter sachets of shabu presented in court were truly
identified himself as a police officer. the subject matter of the sale between the
accused-appellants and PO1 Area.

In People v. Paloma, the Court acquitted the

accused for the prosecution's failure to prove Notwithstanding the above-discussion, we
the crime of illegal sale of drugs, and we have convict both Roger and Emily of illegal
set the standard in proving the same, to wit: possession of prohibited drugs despite the
fact that they were charged for the sale of
Under the "objective" test set by the Court in
illegal drugs, because possession is necessarily
People v. Doria, the prosecution must clearly
included in sale of illegal drugs.
and adequately show the details of the
purported sale, namely, the initial contact
between the poseur-buyer and the pusher,
Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court
the offer to purchase, the promise or payment
provides:
of the consideration, and, finally, the
accused's delivery of the illegal drug to the Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between
buyer, whether the latter be the informant allegation and proof. When there is variance
alone or the police officer. This proof is between the offense charged in the complaint
essential to ensure that law-abiding citizens or information and that proved, and the
are not unlawfully induced to commit the offense as charged is included in or necessarily
offense. includes the offense proved, the accused shall
be convicted of the offense proved which is
included in the offense charged, or of the
In the instant case, PO1 Area's testimony offense charged which is included in the
showed no evidence that the transaction as to offense proved.
the sale of the 12 sachets of shabu ever
happened. Rather, PO1 Area adequately
testified on the fact that accused-appellant Since sale of dangerous drugs necessarily
Roger handed the 12 sachets of shabu to includes possession of the same, the accused-
Emily who kept them in a coin purse. And appellants should be convicted of possession.
after PO1 Area identified himself as a police We have consistently ruled that possession of
operative, he found the 12 sachets of shabu in prohibited or dangerous drugs is absorbed in
Emily's possession. From the foregoing, while the sale thereof. Then Associate Justice
the prosecution was able to prove the sale of Artemio Panganiban logically and clearly
one sachet of shabu, it is patently clear that it explained the rationale behind this ruling, to
never established with moral certainty all the wit:
elements of illegal sale of the 12 sachets
ofshabu. And failure to show that indeed The prevailing doctrine is that possession of
there was sale means failure to prove the guilt marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof,
of the accused for illegal sale of drugs, except where the seller is further
because what matters in the prosecution for apprehended in possession of another
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is to show quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered
proof that the sale actually happened, by or included in the sale and which are
coupled with the presentation in court of probably intended for some future dealings or
corpus delicti. Here, the prosecution failed to use by the seller.
 found in the possession of Emily. But PO1 Area
saw Roger hand the same 12 sachets of shabu
Possession is a necessary element in a
to Emily. While Roger had lost physical
prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs.
possession of the said 12 sachets of shabu, he
It is indispensable that the prohibited drug
had constructive possession of the same
subject of the sale be identified and presented
because they remain to be under his control
in court. That the corpus delicti of illegal sale
and management. In the Juan case, Lee See
could not be established without a showing
gave the physical possession of the opium to
that the accused possessed, sold and
Cabinico while Chan Guy Juan had not yet
delivered a prohibited drug clearly indicates
received the same opium from Lee See, but
that possession is an element of the former.
both were held guilty of illegal possession of
The same rule is applicable in cases of delivery
opium. Thus, we can liken the instant case to
of prohibited drugs and giving them away to
that of Juan because while Roger had lost
another.
physical possession of the 12 sachets of shabu
to Emily, he maintained constructive
possession of the same.
For prosecution of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs to prosper, the following
essential elements must be proven, namely:
Convicting both Emily and Roger of possession
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or
of illegal drugs deprives their children of
object that is identified to be a prohibited
parents. But if the Court have to take care of
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
our children and the family where each of us
law; and (3) the accused freely and
belongs, the Court are obligated to put in jail
consciously possess the said drug.
all those, including fathers and mothers, who
peddle illegal drugs.

Emily and Roger were found in possession of

12 sachets of shabu.
The Court emphasized the need for the public
prosecutor to properly evaluate all the pieces
of evidence and file the proper information to
In United States v. Juan, the Court have serve the ends of justice. The public
clarified the meaning of the words having prosecutor must exert all efforts so as not to
possession of. The Court said that the said deny the People a remedy against those who
phrase included constructive possession, that sell prohibited drugs to the detriment of the
is, the relation between the owner of the drug community and its children. Many drug cases
and the drug itself when the owner is not in are dismissed because of the prosecutor's
actual physical possession, but when it is still sloppy work and failure to file airtight cases. If
under his control and management and only the prosecution properly files the
subject to his disposition. In other words, in Information and prosecutes the same with
that case, we recognized the fact that a precision, guilty drug pushers would be
person remains to be in possession of the punished to the extent allowed under the law,
prohibited drugs although he may not have or as in this case.
may have lost physical possession of the
same.

The ruling in Juan applies to the present case.

Admittedly, the 12 sachets of shabu were