GR No.

188698, Jul 22, 2015

PEOPLE v. SONIA BERNEL NUARIN

FACTS:

The appealed decision affirmed the May 25, 2007 joint decision of the RTC Branch 80, Quezon
City, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

PO1 Roberto Manalo testified that members of the District Drug Enforcement Group of the
Central Police District went to Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City, to conduct a buy-bust
operation against the appellant. When they arrived there at around 12:30 p.m., the informant
introduced PO1 Manalo to the appellant. PO1 Manalo told the appellant that he wanted to buy
₱100.00 worth of shabu. The appellant handed a sachet containing white crystalline substances
to PO1 Manalo who, in turn, gave him the marked money. PO1 Mutia searched the appellant
and found two other plastic sachets inside the appellant's coin purse. Thereafter, the police
brought the appellant and the seized items to the police station.

RTC found the appellant guilty of the illegal sale of 0.03 gram of shabu penalized under Section
5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

However, RTC acquitted the appellant of illegal possession of dangerous drugs for insufficiency
of evidence.

ISSUE:

W/N the prosecution was able to comply with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. 9165 and with the chain of
custody requirement of this Act.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held No. The Court acquit the appellant for the prosecution's failure to
prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory
presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime: the identities of the buyer and
seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and the existence of the corpus delicti.

The totality of evidence presented in this case does not support the appellant's conviction for
violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. The Court reiterated that the prosecution's
failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody
requirement of RA 9165, compromised the identity of the item seized, which is the corpus
delicti of the crime charged against appellant. Following the constitutional mandate, when the
guilt of the appellant has not been proven with moral certainty, the presumption of innocence
prevails and his exoneration should be granted as a matter of right.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ENRICO MIRONDO Y IZON
G.R. No. 210841, October 14, 2015

FACTS:

At around 3:00 in the afternoon on May 21, 2006, SPO4 Melchor de la Peña received
information from his informant that a certain "Erik Manok" was selling illegal drugs in his
residence located at Gitna, Barangay Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna. Immediately, he relayed the
information to the Chief of Police who instructed him to undertake a surveillance of the area
and if the information given by the informant is true, to conduct a buy-bust operation to effect
the arrest of the supposed seller of the illegal drugs.

SPO4 de la Peña called on the three (3) police officers from the intelligence section of the police
department to act as back-up arresting officers of the raiding team, namely, PO1 Alejandro
Ame, SPO1 Arnel Gonzales and PO1 Jifford Signap. The latter was designated as the
poseurbuyer and was given P200.00 as marked money and the civilian informant was assigned
to act as the middle man to facilitate the buy-bust operation. After the briefing, they all
proceeded to Barangay Cuyab in San Pedro, Laguna, and positioned themselves along the street
adjacent to the house of "Erik Manok."

PO1 Jifford and the informant proceeded to the house of "Erik Manok". After the sale
transaction having been consummated, the arresting team brought appellant to the police
station and turned him over to the Investigator on duty for processing. They then prepared
their Pre-Operational Plan, the Certificate of Inventory as well as the official request for
chemical and laboratory examination of the suspected shabu they apprehended from the
appellant. Significantly, the examination conducted disclosed that the white crystalline
substance contained in the plastic sachet recovered from the appellant tested positive for the
presence of shabu.

Mirondo denied the charges against him, claiming that he was not arrested in a buy-bust
operation. RTC found Mirondo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of
Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. In its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the RTC judgment of
conviction. The appellate court found that all the elements of the offense of illegal sale of shabu
were sufficiently established by the prosecution.

ISSUES:

1. W/N the court a quo gravely erred in griving credence to the prosecution’s evidence.
2. W/N the accused is guilty despite the broken chain of custody of the allegedly confiscated
shabu.
3. W/N the accused is guilty despite non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165.

RULING

It is a well-established doctrine that the trial court's findings of fact are, as a general rule,
entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, especially when affirmed by the
CA. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and
substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been
overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. The case at bench falls under such exception and,
hence, a departure from the general rule is warranted.

For a successful prosecution of an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were
identified. Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as
evidence. The narcotic substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the
fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction.

In the case at bench, the Court finds that the second element is wanting. It appears that the
subject 0.03 gram of shabu allegedly confiscated from Mirondo was never presented in evidence
during the trial for identification by the prosecution witnesses PO1 Signap and SPO4 de la Peña,
albeit the same had been formally offered by the prosecution. Accordingly, the prosecution
failed to prove the indispensable element of corpus delicti of the case.

The SC emphasizes the need for trial courts to be more circumspect and meticulous in
scrutinizing the evidence for the prosecution so as to make sure that the stringent standard of
proof beyond reasonable doubt is met with due regard to relevant jurisprudence.

Accused-appellant Enrico Mirondo y Izon is acquitted on reasonable doubt.

People vs Juliet Pancho

G.R. No. 206910
October 14, 2015

FACTS:
Members of the Criminal Investigation and intelligence Bureau of Cebu City conducted a search
in the house of accused-appellant and her husband Samuel Pancho located in SistioPlastikan,
Barangay Duljo-Fatima, Cebu City. Police Superintendent Pablo Labra served the search warrant
on accused appellant. Thereafter PO1 Veloso, designated as the searcher, PO1 Ilagan,
designated as the recorder and three barangay tanods, as witnesses proceeded with the search.

The search yielded three big plastic packets of suspected shabu weighing a total of 14.49 grams,
which were recovered under a jewelry box placed on top of a cabinet divider. PO1 Velasco
handed the packets of shabu to PO2 Ilagan who recorded them in the confiscation receipt and
made markings on the plastic packets. PO1 Veloso accompanied PO2 Ilagan in handing over the
seized articles and the letter request to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. The
PNP Crime Lab later issued Chemistry Report No. D-1381-2005 confirming that the three heat
sealed transparent plastic bags, weighing a total of 14.49 grams, were tested positive for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

On September 22, 2005 an information was filed against the accused for possession of illegal
drugs (Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165. After the prosecution and the defense presented
their respective evidences, the Trial Court convicted the accused for the crime charged. A
notice of appeal was sent to the Court of Appeals, which later on affirmed the decision of the
Trial Court with slight modification with respect to the fine (reduced to P500,000).

On appeal, the accused argued the inconsistencies with respect to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses. One of the officers who conducted the search testified that they first
searched the second floor of the house, while the other officer testified that they first searched
the first floor of the house. The accused further argued that the barangay tanods should have
been made to testify to corroborate the testimonies of the police officers relative to the search,
Furthermore the requisites under section 21, paragraph 1, Article 21 of RA no. 9165 were not
complied with. Lastly, for failing to immediately surrender the seized items before the Court
who issued the search warrant pursuant to Section 12 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused-appellant’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt

RULING:
Yes, the arguments of the accused lacks merit. With respect to the first assignment of error, the
Court ruled that such inconsistencies are trivial in nature. In the case of Valleno vs People, the
Court enumerated the requisites in order for prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous
drug to prosper, to wit: 1. The accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to
be a prohibited drug, 2. Such possession is not authorized by law, and 3. The accused was freely
and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. In this case all of the elements are
present. While it is true that the drugs were not found on accused appellant’s person,
nonetheless the accused was deemed to have in constructive possession of the packets of
shabu because they were under her control and management.
With respect to the second assignment of error, while it is true that the above stated law
requires that such articles seized be first photographed in the presence of the media and DOJ,
which were not followed in this case, nonetheless the Implementing Rules of RA 9165 offers
some flexibility in cases of justifiable causes in cases of noncompliance. The only requirement is
to properly preserve the integrity of the seized items which the Court found to be in order.
Lastly with respect to the last assignment of error, the Court ruled that the failure of the raiding
team to deliver the seized items to the judge who issued the warrant becomes immaterial
because records show that the chain of custody is intact.

People of the Philippines vs Akmad

G.R. No. 195194

FACTS:

On 25 September 2003, senior Police Officer 1 Hashim Maung (SPO1 Maung) of the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agengy (PDEA), Bulacan Provincial Office received a report from a civilian
informant regarding the illegal drug activities of Kamad and Bainhor in the area of Meycauayan,
Bulacan. The two were allegedly capable of disposing large volumes of shabu through
consignment basis. SPO1 Maung instructed the civilian informant to set up a drug deal with the
suspects.

At around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same date, the informant returned and reported
that he had already negotiated for the delivery of 50 grams of shabu worth Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00). The delivery would allegedly take place in front of McDonald's restaurant in
Barangay Banga, Meycauayan, Bulacan. A team composed of Police Officer 3 Rolando
Navarette (PO3 Navarette), as poseur-buyer, and SPO1 Maung and PO1 Co, as backup, was
immediately formed to conduct a buy-bust operation.

Upon arrival at the locus criminis at around 5:45 o'clock in the afternoon, the informant
introduced PO3 Navarette to Kamad and Bainhor as an interested buyer. Kamad then took a
medium-sized plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from his pocket and gave it to Bainhor,
who, in turn, handed it to PO3 Navarette. Upon receipt of the plastic sachet, PO3 Navarette
immediately executed their prearranged signal by scratching the back of his head with his right
hand. SPO1 Maung and PO1 Co immediately rushed in and introduced themselves as PDEA
operatives. The accused were informed of their rights and brought to the police station for
disposition and documentation.

PO3 Navarette testified that he marked the plastic sachet with his initial "RCN." He likewise
testified that he prepared the request for the laboratory examination that was brought by SPO1
Maung to the crime laboratory together with the specimen, which later on tested positive for
shabu.

Accused-appellants denied the accusations against them. They maintained that they were
merely drinking soft drinks at the McDonald's fast food restaurant in Barangay Banga,
Meycauayan, Bulacan when three men suddenly approached them and poked a gun at Kamad.
They were dragged out of the restaurant and forced to board a red car. Then, they were
brought to a small house and were ordered to remove their clothing. They were bodily
searched but the three men did not find anything on them. Thereafter, they were brought to
the provincial jail.
On 22 May 2008, the trial court promulgated a Decision7 finding accused-appellants guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00). The trial
court ruled that the evidence presented by the prosecution successfully established the
elements of illegal sale of a dangerous drug as accused-appellants were caught in flagrante
delicto in a valid buy-bust operation. It noted that the defense of denial and frame-up offered
by the defense cannot overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties accorded to the apprehending officers.

On intermediate appellate review, the CA found no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC
and upheld its ruling. The appellate court agreed with the RTC that the testimony of the lone
prosecution witness was sufficient to establish the culpability of accused-appellants. It also held
that the apprehending officers complied with the proper procedure in the custody and
disposition of the seized drug and that the identity of the corpus delicti was properly preserved
and established by the prosecution.

ISSUE:

Whether the lower courts gravely erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty of the crime
charged notwithstanding the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.

RULING:

We deny the appeal. Accused-appellants allege that PO3 Navarette testified that they were
informed by a civilian informant that the accused-appellants can dispose large volume of shabu
through consignment basis, which means that, at first, they will be given the shabu and on the
next delivery, they will give the payment for the shabu earlier delivered. Accused-appellants
maintain that the testimony defeated the prosecution's claim of illegal sale of drugs. They insist
that no sale transaction was consummated between them and PO3 Navarette because one of
the essential elements of a sale, i.e. the price certain in money or its equivalent is absent.

The argument is erroneous. In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long
as the sale of dangerous drug is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is
presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any
money used in the buy-bust operation. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. In the
instant case, the prosecution was able to establish the consummated transaction between the
poseur-buyer and accused-appellants.
Moreover, we note that accused-appellants were charged with selling, trading, delivering,
giving away, dispatching in transit and transporting dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165. The charge was not limited to the selling of dangerous drugs. The aforesaid
provision of law punishes not only the sale but also the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs
after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. In the
distribution of prohibited drugs, the payment of any consideration is immaterial. The mere act
of distributing the prohibited drugs to others is in itself a punishable offense.
 People of the Philippines vs. Carrera
G.R. 215731

FACTS:

On July 13, 2009, a confidential informant of IO2 Sandaan arrived at the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency - Metro Manila Regional Office (PDEA-MMRO) and reported illegal drug
activities of a certain Latif in Caloocan City. The informant alleged that Latif was engaged in
selling shabu and capable of selling large amounts of bulto. IO2 Sandaan instructed the
informant to call Latif and order seven bulto of shabu and learned that each bulto would cost
P27, 000.00. The informant confirmed the transaction. IO2 Sandaan called a team composed of
IO1 Frederick Santos, IO1 Reed, IO1 Samson and IO1 Leverette Lopez and briefed them on the
alleged drug activities in Caloocan City. At about 4:00 a.m. the following day, IO2 Sandaan
conducted a briefing on the buy-bust operation. IO1 Samson was the designated poseur-buyer
while IO1 Santos was the immediate back-up arresting officer. IO2 Sandaan handed two P500-
bills as buy-bust money to IO1 Samson who marked the bills with his initials. They made it
appear that the money was in a bundle placing one P500-bill at the top of the stack and another
at the bottom.

They agreed that if the deal was consummated, IO1 Samson would remove his cap as the signal.
IO2 Sandaan asked her team to prepare the Pre-Operation Report and Authority to Operate.
Before leaving, the team coordinated with the Tactical Operation Center, the Quezon City
Police and the Caloocan City Police. The team with the informant went to Brgy. Malaria,
Caloocan City on-board a red L-300 van. Upon arriving at around 9:30 a.m., IO1 Samson and the
informant alighted from the van and proceeded to the designated area, an eatery near the
barangay hall. The rest of the team stayed at a nearby burger place about eight meters away.

With the team positioned, the informant called Latif. A short male person, subsequently
identified as appellant, arrived shortly after the call. The informant introduced IO1 Samson as
the buyer and asked whether he had the item with him. Appellant replied in the affirmative and
asked IO1 Samson if he brought the money. IO1 Samson replied in the affirmative and partly
opened the plastic bag containing the money showing the top portion to appellant. He then
informed appellant that he will only hand the money when he received the item.

Appellant pulled out from his pocket a transparent plastic wrapped with electrical tape and
handed it to IO1 Samson. Upon receipt of the plastic packet with the crystalline substance, IO1
Samson grabbed appellant, introduced himself as PDEA agent, and removed his cap to notify
the team. The team approached the target area and IO1 Santos assisted IO1 Samson in
arresting appellant by handcuffing him and reading to him his constitutional rights.

There being a commotion caused by the arrest and spectators drawn to the sight, IO2 Sandaan
called the driver to the target area. A person introducing himself as the barangay captain
approached her and asked what had happened. IO2 Sandaan introduced herself as a PDEA
agent and told him that they were arresting someone. She learned that appellant was a
member of a Muslim drug group and a tricycle driver. Noting that she only had five agents with
her she decided to promptly leave the area and conduct an inventory of the seized articles in
Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City. En route, IO1 Samson maintained custody and possession of the
items taken from appellant.

When the team arrived at the barangay hall of Brgy. Pinyahan, they opened the plastic bag and
found seven sachets of shabu. These were included in the list along with electrical wrapper and
plastic bag. An Inventory of Seized Properties/Items was prepared by IO1 Samson in the
presence of Barangay Kagawad Melinda Gaffud. Inventory was made and the evidence marked
by IO1 Samson while IO1 Lopez photographed the same. After finalizing the inventory and
markings, the team went back to the PDEA-MMRO to prepare the requests for laboratory
examination and drug test examination. IO1 Samson personally brought the specimen and the
request to the PDEA Crime Laboratory Service on the same day.
Upon receipt of the request, Maria Criser Abad, the Crime Laboratory Chemist on duty,
personally performed the examination on the seven sachets containing white crystalline
substance submitted by IO1 Samson. Appellant's urine sample was likewise submitted. The
evidence was found pos1t1ve for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. On the other hand,
appellant's urine sample was found negative for the presence of shabu and marijuana.

The defense's evidence consisted of the testimonies of Jocelyn Garcia-Carrera, live-in partner of
appellant, and appellant. Appellant denied owning and possessing the plastic sachets
containing the white crystalline substance.

In its November 27, 2012 Decision, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On appeal, the CA in its June 10, 2014 Decision
found appellant guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 11, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165.

ISSUE:

The issue for our consideration is whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of illegal possession of illegal drugs.

RULING:
We agree with the CA that appellant may not be held guilty of illegal sale of a prohibited drug.
In order to establish the crime of illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove beyond
reasonable doubt (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object and the
consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the
thing. It is thus imperative that proof of the transaction or sale be established together with the
presentation of the corpus delicti in court.

Here, IO1 Samson, as the poseur-buyer, admitted that while he was in possession of the
marked money he failed to effect payment even after the seller delivered the item to him.
There being no payment, no sale was ever consummated between the parties. There being no
consummated sale, appellant cannot be found guilty of illegal sale.

While we agree with the CA that appellant is still liable for an offense under R.A. No. 9165, we
disagree with its conclusion that appellant is guilty of illegal possession of a prohibited drug. We
previously held that Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 punishes acts in addition to selling
prohibited drugs.

In the present case, the prosecution established that appellant based on a prior arrangement
knowingly passed the shabu to IO1 Samson. Being a tricycle driver, appellant was without
authority to hold and deliver the drug. Thus, appellant is guilty of illegal delivery of shabu.

Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the penalty of life imprisonment to death and
a tine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who shall be found guilty of illegal delivery
of a prohibited drug.
 People of the Philippines vs. Bocadi
G.R. No. 193388

FACTS:

At around 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon of 1 March 2005, Special Investigator Arnaldo Fineza (SI
Fineza) and SRA Miguel Dungog (Agent Dungog) of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
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.
Before proceeding at the target area, a briefing was conducted and the office of the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was informed of the operation.

SI Fineza, together with two informants, went to Barangay Looc. As they reached the locus
criminis, they were met by four men, one of whom was identified by the informant as
Baticolon. A man later identified as Bocadi 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. Thereafter, the
group immediately arrested Bocadi. During this time the other suspects, including Baticolon,
were prompted to scatter and escape. · SI Fineza and one of the informants pursued and caught
up with Baticolon who ran inside a nearby house. Baticolon was apprehended and dragged back
to the locus criminis. SI Fineza informed the accused of the nature of their arrest and of their
constitutional rights. SI Fineza then pre-marked the sachet of suspected shabu.

SI Fineza then physically searched Bocadi and discovered from him another sachet of suspected
shabu. This was also pre-marked by SI Fineza. SI Fineza also recovered the marked money from
Baticolon after a search was made on the latter's person. Subsequently, the suspects, as well as
the seized and recovered items, were brought to the NBI Office where these were
photographed and inventoried. The inventory was prepared, signed and witnessed by SkyCable
media man Juancho Gallarde, Barangay Looc Kagawad Rogelio Talavera, Agent Dungog and
PDEA representative SPO 1 Manuel Sanchez.

The seized items were then brought to the Negros Oriental PNP Provincial Crime Laboratory for
laboratory examination. Tests results revealed that the contents of the two confiscated sachets
yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or more commonly known as shabu. The
urine samples from the two accused also confirmed the presence of shabu.3 Version of the
Defense

Both accused denied the allegations against them. The defense claimed that on 1 March 2005,
Baticolon was merely resting in his house when he heard someone call out his name. When
Baticolon responded, a man by the name of Walter Adarna (Walter) barged inside his house
and yanked him out. Walter is allegedly a known police asset with whom Baticolon had a
previous altercation. While outside, Walter punched Baticolon on the stomach and told the
latter that he can finally exact his revenge. Thereafter, Walter bodily searched Baticolon and
took his wallet. Baticolon was thereafter handcuffed and brought to the NBI office together
with co-accused Bocadi. Baticolon testified that Bocadi came into the picture only when the
latter was asked by Walter to pinpoint his house. Baticolon's version was corroborated by
defense witness May-May Artus, a neighbor of Baticolon who allegedly saw the entire incident.
On 15 February 2007, the trial court rendered a Decision finding accused Bocadi and
Baticolon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale of shabu.
Only Baticolon appealed the Decision of the RTC. On intermediate appellate review, the
CA found no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC and upheld in toto its ruling. The
appellate court was convinced that the testimonial and object evidence on record amply
support the RTC's finding that the guilt of Baticolon has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
It agreed with the RTC that credence should be accorded to the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and in holding that the apprehending officers complied with the proper procedure in
the custody and disposition of the seized drugs.

ISSUE:

1. Whether the trial courts erred in upholding the existence and validity of the buy bust
operation conducted by the NBI.
2. Whether the trial courts erred in ruling that conspiracy to sell illegal drugs was
established by the prosecution.
3. Whether the trial courts erred in convicting Baticolon of the crime charged despite
the fact that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

The Court found the appeal bereft of merit. 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. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the
receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.

The evidence for the prosecution clearly established all these elements. The prosecution
proved that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted with SI Fineza as the buyer and
Baticolon, in connivance with Bocadi, as the sellers of the shabu. Likewise, the prosecution
presented in e evidence the plastic sachet containing shabu as the object of the sale and proved
that ₱300.00 was received as consideration thereof. Finally, the delivery of the shabu sold and
its payment were clearly testified to by the prosecution witnesses.

Baticolon's defense which is anchored principally on denial and frame-Up cannot be given
credence. It does not have more evidentiary · weight than the positive assertions of the
prosecution witnesses. His defense is unavailing considering that he and his cohort were caught
in flagrante delicto in a legitimate buy-bust operation. This Court has ruled that the defense of
denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor for it can
just as easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecution for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

As correctly noted by the appellate court, although Baticolon was not the one who offered and
delivered the shabu to the poseur buyer, his act in thereafter receiving the marked money gives
rise to the inference that he was in connivance with the seller. Indeed, no person in his right
mind would receive and keep the money given in payment for an illegal drug unless he is a part
of such sale. We also took into consideration the fact that after the arrest, the ₱300 was found
still in Baticolon's possession.

GR No. 198314, Sep 24, 2014

PEOPLE v. RICHARD GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES

FACTS:

On 20 January 2004 at around 1:00 o'clock in the morning by the members of Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Task Force (AIDSTF), Pasig City Police Station. It was prompted by an information given
by a female caller received by AIDSTF's Team Supervisor Senior Police Officer 3 Leneal Matias
(SPO3 Matias), who in turn, coordinated with Police Inspector Melbert Esguerra (P/Insp.
Esguerra), the head of AIDSTF. According to the female caller, a certain "Chard" was
selling shabu in a place located at 137 MC Guinto, Barangay Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. Based
on the information, P/Insp. Esguerra instructed the team to verify the call from their civilian
informant residing also in Barangay Pinagbuhatan. Upon positive verification, P/Insp. Esguerra
formed a buy-bust team composed of SPO3 Matias, SPO2 Braulio Basco (SPO2 Basco), PO1
Michael Familara (PO1 Familara), PO1 Alan Mapula, and PO1 Porferio Bansuelo (PO1 Bansuelo)
and designated PO1 Mendoza to act as the poseur-buyer. In turn, SPO3 Matias prepared the
pre-operation report and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on
the buy-bust operation. PO1 Mendoza, as the poseur-buyer, was given two (2) pieces of
marked P100.00 bills as buy-bust money by P/Insp. Esguerra.

After the briefing, the team including the informant proceeded to the target area at around
eleven o'clock in the evening of 19 April 2004. Upon arrival, PO1 Mendoza and the informant
positioned themselves outside the house of this certain "Chard" (later identified as the accused
Richard S.A. Guinto) and waited for him to step out. The informant approached Chard and
introduced PO1 Mendoza as a person in need of illegal drugs worth P200.00. PO1 Mendoza
then gave buy-bust money to Guinto as payment. Guinto, in turn, drew two (2) plastic sachets
containing shabu and gave them to PO1 Mendoza. Guinto then put the money on his left
pocket. After the consummation of illegal sale, the buy-bust team brought Guinto to Pasig City
Police Station and turned him over to SPO2 Basco for investigation. PO1 Mendoza turned over
the confiscated drugs to SPO2 Basco. Consequently, SPO2 Basco asked for a laboratory
examination request to determine the chemical composition of the confiscated
drugs.[5] Thereafter, confiscated drug was brought by PO1 Noble to the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination.

Guinto was eventually charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs punishable under Section 5
of Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The trial court found Guinto guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the
trial court.

ISSUE:

W/N the prosecution was able to comply with Sec. 21, Art. II. of R.A. 9165 and with the chain of
custody requirement of this Act.

RULING:

No. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti. This is
fatal in establishing illegal sale. Moreover, the conflicting statements of the policemen on
material points tarnished the credibility of the testimony for the prosecution.

In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object and consideration of the sale and the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor.[23] Hence, to establish a concrete case, it is an utmost importance to prove
the identity of the narcotic substance itself as it constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore
imperative for the prosecution to first establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the
dangerous drug before asserting other arguments.

The prosecution failed to prove that each and every element that constitutes an illegal sale of
dangerous drug was present to convict the accused. Upon evaluation of the testimonies of PO1
Familara and PO1 Mendoza, it is apparent that there is an inconsistency on the identity and
number of plastic sachets bought from the accused. In his statement, PO1 Familara recalled
that upon arrival at the place of arrest, PO1 Mendoza told him that he was able to buy one
plastic sachet of shabu from Guinto. On the other hand, PO1 Mendoza recalled that he was
able to buy two plastic sachets instead of one. The pointed inconsistency is not a minor one
that can be brushed aside as the discrepancy taints the very corpus deliciti of the crime of
illegal sale. A vital point of contention, the prosecution's evidence places in reasonable doubt
the identification of the dangerous drug that was presented in court.
The Court held that the prosecution fell short in proving with certainty the culpability of the
accused and engendered a doubt on the true circumstances of the buy-bust operation. In dubio
pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable
doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.

PEOPLE v. JERRY PUNZALAN

GR No. 199087, Nov 11, 2015

FACTS:

On November 3, 2009, at around 4:30 in the morning, Intelligence Agent 1 Liwanag Sandaan
(IA1 Sandaan) and her team implemented a search warrant[5] issued on October 28, 2009 by
then Manila RTC Judge Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. to (i) make an immediate search of the
premises/house of accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, Vima Punzalan, Jaime
Punzalan, Arlene Punzalan-Razon and Felix Razon who are all residents of 704 Apelo Cruz
Compound, Barangay 175, Malibay, Pasay City; and (ii) to seize and take possession of an
undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs, including the proceeds or fruits and bring
said property to the court.

The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Team tasked to conduct the search was
composed of IA1 Sandaan as team leader, SI2 Esteban and IO2 Jessica Alvarado (IO2 Alvarado)
as arresting officers and IO1 Pagaragan as seizing officer.[7] IO1 Pagaragan made lateral
coordination with the Southern Police District, Tactical Operations Unit, as evidenced by the
Pre-Operation Report[8] dated November 3, 2009 and Authority to Operate. Before proceeding
to the target area, they passed by the barangay hall to coordinate with Barangay Chairman
Reynaldo Flores, Kagawad Larry Fabella and Kagawad Edwin Razon. The team likewise brought
with them a media representative affiliated with "Sunshine Radio" to cover the operation. From
the barangay hall, they walked toward the target place using as a guide the sketch they
prepared.

When they were already outside the house of Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, which is a three-
storey structure, IA1 Sandaan knocked on the door. The team was able to enter the house of
Jerry and Patricia Punzalan who were both surprised when found inside the house. IO1
Pagaragan showed and read the search warrant infront of accused-appellants. Inside the house,
the team immediately saw plastic sachets placed on top of the table. 101 Pagaragan was able to
seize nine (9) heat-sealed plastic sachets, two (2) square-shaped transparent plastic containers
and a small round plastic container. All three (3) plastic containers contained smaller heat-
sealed plastic sachets of white crystalline substance of suspected shabu. There were also other
paraphernalia, guns, money and a digital weighing scale.

Accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan were brought to the PDEA Office in Quezon City
for investigation. IO1 Pagaragan presented the seized evidence to Atty. Benjamin Gaspe, who
prepared the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report,[12] Request for Drug Test/Physical and Medical
Examination. They likewise caused the preparation of their respective affidavits. Photographs
were also taken during the actual search and inventory. Laboratory examination of the seized
pieces of drug evidence gave positive results for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug.

The trial court held that the prosecution successfully and sufficiently established that the two
accused were present during the initial search, thus, satisfying the requirement of a lawful and
valid search. The CA held that there was a valid search and seizure conducted and the seized
items are admissible in evidence.

ISSUE:
 1. W/N the search warrant issued by Branch 17-RTC Manila, was in fact illegally procured
and unlawfully implemented.

2. W/N the Prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of accused- appellants for
alleged possession of illegal drugs as the requirement demanded by Chain-in-Custody
[chain of custody] Rule were never met.

RULING:

The Court held that accused-appellants failed to show that the application for search warrant of
the subject premises was not approved by the PDEA Regional Director or his authorized
representative. On the contrary, the search warrant issued by the RTC of Manila, Branch 17
satisfactorily complies with the requirements for the issuance thereof as determined by the
issuing court.

The Court found no merit in accused-appellants' claim that the RTC of Manila, Branch 17, had
no authority to issue the assailed search warrant since the place to be searched is outside its
territorial jurisdiction. As aforecited, Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC clearly
authorizes the Executive Judges and the Vice-Executive Judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon
City to issue search warrants to be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction in special
criminal cases such as those involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, as in this case, for as long as the parameters under the said section have been complied
with.

As correctly ruled by the CA, even if the barangay officials were not present during the initial
search, the search was witnessed by accused-appellants themselves, hence, the search was
valid since the rule that "two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality" must be present applies only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the
premises or any member of his family.

The Court was not persuaded in the accused-appellants' assertion that the chain of custody rule
has not been complied with when no inventory or acknowledgment receipt signed by Atty.
Gaspe was submitted in evidence and that no evidence was shown as to the condition of the
specimen upon its presentation to Atty. Gaspe, who was not presented in court to explain the
discrepancy.

In this case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was duly established from the time
the heat-sealed plastic sachets were seized and marked by 101 Pagaragan to its subsequent
turnover to Atty. Gaspe of the PDEA Office in Quezon City. 101 Pagaragan was also the one who
personally delivered and submitted the specimens composed of 293 sachets of shabu to the
PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. The specimens were kept in custody until
they were presented as evidence before the trial court and positively identified by IO1
Pagaragan as the very same specimens he marked during the inventory.

The Court found no error on the part of the CA in affirming the trial court's conviction of
accused-appellants of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution has proven
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellants Jerry Punzalan and Patricia Punzalan
of the crime charged.

GR No. 212940, Sep 16, 2015

CHRISTOPHER DELA RIVA Y HORARIO v. PEOPLE

FACTS:

On April 27, 2009 a confidential agent reported to the officers at the National Headquarters
Special Enforcement Services, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Headquarters at
Brgy. Piñahan, Quezon City that a certain Chris, who turned out to be appellant herein, is doing
illegal drug activities at Brgy. Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales.

Acting on the report, a briefing was conducted to entrap the suspect. IO1 Enrique Lucero was
assigned as the poseur-buyer. The briefing was followed by a pre-operation report and an
authorization to operate. A Certificate of Coordination was then issued by the PDEA National
Operating Center. Such a document is issued whenever an operation is to be conducted outside
the national headquarters. Boodle money in the amount of P60,000.00 was prepared with two
(2) P500.00 as the actual money placed on top of the bundle. Said amount was for ten (10)
grams of shabu as agreed between the confidential agent and herein appellant.

At 2 o'clock, the team then proceeded to Subic and arrived at the target area around 5 o'clock.
The specific location was at Maniago Street, Brgy. Calapuan, Subic. Those who went to Maniago
Street were Agent Lucero, Agent Tumabini, Agent Fajardo and the civilian asset. The rest of the
team or the back-up team stayed at the National Highway at Brgy. Calapuan.

The team saw in plain view some paraphernalia inside the house and these were two (2) pieces
aluminum foil, improvised water pipe, five (5) pieces disposable lighters and several
transparent plastic sachets. They confiscated said items.

After informing appellant of his rights, they immediately left the area. The inventory was
conducted at the National Headquarters of PDEA for security and safety considerations. The
inventory was witnessed and also signed by a Barangay Kagawad while photographs were also
taken.

A request for the laboratory examination of the specimen yielded positive results for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Appellant's urine was also tested and yielded
positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The RTC found that all the elements of the crime were established, to wit: 1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment thereof. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. It basically stated that the
integrity of the drugs seized from the accused was preserved and that the chain of custody of
the subject drugs was unbroken.

ISSUE:

W/N the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the drugs allegedly seized
from accused-appelant.

RULING:

It is fundamental in our Constitution[27] and basic in our Rules of Court[28] that the accused in a
criminal case enjoys the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Likewise, it is well-
established in jurisprudence that the prosecution bears the burden to overcome such
presumption. If the prosecution fails to discharge this burden, the accused deserves a judgment
of acquittal. On the other hand, if the existence of proof beyond reasonable doubt is
established by the prosecution, the accused gets a guilty verdict.

In order to survive the test for a successful prosecution of cases of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the prosecution must be able to: 1) establish the essential elements of the crime - (a) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and (b) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor; and 2) strictly follow the seizure and
custody procedure provided under Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 and Section 21 (a) of the IRR.

The Court held that the prosecution breached the first link right away when the buy-bust team
failed to immediately mark the seized drugs , conduct a physical inventory and photograph the
same after the arrest of the accused and the confiscation of the seized drugs. The law requires
that the marking, physical inventory and photograph be conducted at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures. Additionally, the law requires that the said procedure must be done 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. The Supreme Court was surprised that the
PDEA agents in this case failed to observe the proper procedures.

In this case, the PDEA agents failed to convince the Court that they had justifiable reasons not
to immediately and strictly comply with the provisions of the law so as to comply with the chain
of custody requirements.

People of the Philippines vs. Asignar

G.R. 206593

FACTS:

By way of background, separate informations were filed against accused-appellant before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 13, as follows:

For violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU 70735):

That on August 24, 2004, at about 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without being
authorized by law, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer the following:
one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet of 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance
placed in a plastic pack locally knowns as "shabu" containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug.

For violation of Sec. II, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU 70733):
That on or about the 24th day of August, 2004, at 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and
without being authorized by law, did then and there have in possession and under his control
the following: three (3) transparent plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline
substance locally knowns as "shabu", containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.

For violation of Sec. 12, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU 70734):
That on or about the 24th day of August, 2004, at about 6:45 a.m. in the City of Cebu,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with
deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there have in possession
and under his control the following: two (2) disposable lighters used as an improvised burner
one plastic paraphernalia for repacking shabu which are instruments and/or equipments fit or
intended for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting or introducing any dangerous drug
into the body.

The above-cited cases were consolidated.

After trial, the RTC convicted accused-appellant in a decision. The seller and the buyer of shabu
are clearly identified. They both testified. The 0.02 gram of shabu taken from accused-appellant
was identified, marked, presented and admitted in evidence. It was found positive for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The chain of custody of the object evidence was
also well established. Accused-appellant was also found in possession of three packets with
traces of shabu and shabu paraphernalia. They were clearly identified, marked, presented and
admitted in evidence. There is no doubt therefore that the accused-appellant had intent to
possess them. Aggrieved, his conviction was appealed before the CA.
 In its Decision dated 31 May 2012, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the RTC,
finding accused-appellant guilty of all the charges. The Court of Appeals found that defense of
extortion was solely on accused-appellant's testimony and no witness was presented to
corroborate his testimony.
Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not accused is guilty for violation of R.A 9165

RULING:

For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, only the following elements are
essential: (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 proof
that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of evidence of the seized item,
as part of the corpus delicti. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and receipt by
the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.

The prosecution has already established the presence of all the elements. PO1 Solana, who
acted as the poseur-buyer, positively identified [accused-appellant] as the person who came
out to meet him, and dealt with him and the informant during the buy-bust operation. It was
accused-appellant himself who gave a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
During the examination of the white crystalline substance bought by PO1 Solana from accused-
appellant together with the three (3) other plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline
substance tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drugs, per
Chemistry report No. D-1525-2005 issued by the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory.

For illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish the
following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to
be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely
and consciously possessed the drug. All the elements were established in this case. Incident to
his lawful arrest, when he was frisked three (3) plastic packets containing traces of white
crystalline substance, later on found to be traces of a dangerous drug, was taken from his
possession. In a number of cases, it has been declared that mere possession of a regulated
drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to
convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus probandi is
shifted to the accused, of knowledge or animus possidendi. Mere possession of the prohibited
substance and the burden of proof is upon accused-appellant to show that he has a license or
permit under law to possess the prohibited drug. The accused-appellant failed to explain his
possession of the prohibited drug. Accused-appellant was misled in his belief that the burden to
prove the lack of license or permit to possess the prohibited drug lies with the prosecution.

In fine, no cogent reason has been adduced to warrant a reversal of the findings and
conclusions of the CA and the RTC adjudging accused-appellant guilty of violation of Sections 5,
11 and Sec. 12 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

People of the Philippines vs. Breis

G.R. No. 205893

FACTS:

Around 3:00 o'clock PM of February 10, 2009 (sic), an informant went to the PDEA-CAR field
office at Melvin Jones, Harrison Road, Baguio City and offered the information that the accused
were bound to transport a box of marijuana from Baguio City to Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga.
Mangili gathered that the accused have been frequently traveling from Pampanga to Baguio to
get marijuana bricks from their supplier at La Trinidad, Benguet. Mangili referred the informant
to Senior PDEJA Officer Tacio for further interview and then the matter was referred to the
PDEA Officer-in-Charge Edgar Apalla, who after careful evaluation, ordered Agent Tacio to form
a team for the entrapment of the accused.

Agent Tacio created a team composed of Mangili and Peralta as arresting officer and seizing
officer, respectively, and briefed them on the operations to be conducted. Tacio disclosed to
the team that the accused were to transport by a public transport bus from Baguio City to Dau,
Pampanga bricks of marijuana packed in a carton and that the departure from Baguio was
scheduled at around 5:00 o'clock PM of that day. The accused Breis would be in a white t-shirt
with "Starbucks" logo and dark jeans while accused Yumol would be wearing a black t-shirt with
a white print and blue jeans. Both the accused were described as standing about 5 feet and 5
inches, thin, and dark complexion.

Agent Peralta then summoned the back-up officers to help secure the bus and subdue the
accused. After introducing themselves as PDEA agents, Mangili asked the accused Breis to open
the box but Breis ignored the request which made Mangili lift and open the box. He took one
brick and discovered it was marijuana. The "Ginebra San Miguel" box yielded three more bricks
of marijuana. Mangili then marked the items on site.

Agent Peralta then informed the accused that they were being arrested for violation of Rep. Act
No. 9165 and then he read their constitutional rights in Pilipino to them.

Thereafter, the team returned to the PDEA-CAR office of Melvin Jones, Baguio City for
documentation such as the preparation of the affidavits of Agents Mangili and Peralta, Booking
Sheet and Arrest Report of both accused, Request for Physical Exam and Request for Laboratory
Exam. Inventory likewise was done around 7:43 o'clock PM on February 10, 2010 at the said
PDEA-CAR office.

After the documentation and inventory, the accused were brought to the Baguio General
Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) and Medico-Legal Certificates were issued showing that
the accused had no external signs of physical injuries at the time of their examination.
Chemistry Report No. D-08-2010 indicates that the confiscated items from the accused yielded
positive to (sic) the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drugs.

The trial court also held that the warrantless search and seizure and the warrantless arrest of
appellants were valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court

ISSUE:

Whether or not acussed may be held liable under R.A 9165

RULING:

The appeal is without merit. Appellants argue that the procedure on seizure and custody of
drugs, specified in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165, was not complied with. In
support of this contention, appellants state that: (1) the PDEA agents did not immediately
conduct the inventory at the place where the items were seized, and did so only at the PDEA-
CAR field office; and (2) the representatives from the media, barangay and Department of
Justice (DOJ) were present during the inventory conducted at the field office, but not at the
place of the seizure during actual confiscation.

Appellants are mistaken. The PDEA agents who apprehended appellants did not deviate from
the procedure prescribed by law and regulations. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165
provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs:
1) The apprehending 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, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Appellants insist that the PDEA agents should have conducted the inventory at the place where
the drugs were seized. However, the IRR clearly provides that in case of warrantless seizures,
the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending team. The physical inventory and photograph were
conducted at the PDEA-CAR field office, a fact that appellants themselves acknowledge and
testified to by IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta.

The requirement of the presence of a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any
elected public official during the physical inventory and photograph was also complied with.
The representatives from the media and the DOJ and an elected barangay official were present
at the inventory conducted at the PDEA-CAR field office, as evidenced by their signatures on the
Inventory of Seized Item and photographs taken during the inventory. In fact, this is not
contested by appellants.
Hence, we find no deviation from the procedure prescribed by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article
II of RA 9165 and its IRR.

Dela Cruz vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 200748

FACTS:

The evidence of the prosecution reveals that at 8:00 a.m. of 31 January 2006, the agents and
special investigators of the National Bureau of Investigation, Central Visayas Regional Office
(NBI-CEVRO) or simply NBI, received a Complaint from Corazon Absin (Corazon) and Charito
Escobido (Charito). The complainants claimed that at 1:00 a.m. of that same day, Ariel Escobido
(Ariel), the live-in partner of Corazon and son of Charito, was picked up by several unknown
male persons believed to be police officers for allegedly selling drugs. An errand boy gave a
number to the complainants, and when the latter gave the number a ring, they were instructed
to proceed to the Gorordo Police Office located along Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. In the said
police office, they met "James" who demanded from them ₱100,000, later lowered to ₱40,000,
in exchange for the release of Ariel. After the meeting, the complainants proceeded to the NBI-
CEVRO to file a complaint and narrate the circumstances of the meeting to the authorities.
While at the NBI-CEVRO, Charito even received calls supposedly from "James" instructing her to
bring the money as soon as possible.

The special investigators at the NBI-CEVRO verified the text messages received by the
complainants. A team was immediately formed to implement an entrapment operation, which
took place inside a Jollibee branch at the corner of Gen. Maxilom and Gorordo Avenues, Cebu
City. The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz by using a pre-marked 500 bill dusted with
fluorescent powder, which was made part of the amount demanded by "James" and handed by
Corazon. Petitioner was later brought to the forensic laboratory of the NBI-CEVRO where
forensic examination was done by forensic chemist Rommel Paglinawan. Petitioner was
required to submit his urine for drug testing. It later yielded a positive result for presence of
dangerous drugs as indicated in the confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology (Dangerous
Drugs) Report No. 2006-TDD-2402 dated 16 February 2006.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 58 of Cebu City, in its Decision dated 6 June 2007, found
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, Article II of R.A.

On appeal the CA found the appeal devoid of merit and affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
ISSUE:

W/N the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal.

RULING:

We declare that the drug test conducted upon petitioner is not grounded upon any existing law
or jurisprudence. The RTC subsequently convicted petitioner, ruling that the following elements
of Section 15 were established: (1) the accused was arrested; (2) the accused was subjected to
drug test; and (3) the confirmatory test shows that he used a dangerous drug.

Disregarding petitioner’s objection regarding the admissibility of the evidence, the lower court
also reasoned that "a suspect cannot invoke his right to counsel when he is required to extract
urine because, while he is already in custody, he is not compelled to make a statement or
testimony against himself. Extracting urine from one’s body is merely a mechanical act, hence,
falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation."

The Court found the ruling and reasoning of the trial court, as well as the subsequent
affirmation by the CA, erroneous on three counts.

First, "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean any person
apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context and understood in
consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for
unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.

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. Under Sec. 12, the
maximum penalty is imprisonment of four years and a fine of ₱50,000.00. In fact, under the
same section, the possession of such equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima
facieevidence that the possessor has used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have
violated Sec. 15.

People of the Philippines vs. Romy Lim Miranda

G.R. No. 231989

FACTS:

Around 8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, IO1 Orellan and his teammates were at Regional Office
X of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Based on a report of a confidential
informant (CI) that a certain "Romy" has been engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs in Zone 7,
Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City, they were directed by their Regional Director, Lt. Col.
Edwin Layese, to gather for a buy-bust operation. During the briefing, IO2 Orcales, IO1 Orellan,
and IOl Carin were assigned as the team leader, the arresting officer/back-up/evidence
custodian, and the poseur-buyer, respectively. The team prepared a P500.00 bill as buy-bust
money (with its serial number entered in the PDEA blotter), the Coordination Form for the
nearest police station, and other related documents.
Using their service vehicle, the team left the regional office about 15 minutes before 10:00 p.m.
and arrived in the target area at 10:00 p.m., more or less. IO1 Carin and the CI alighted from the
vehicle near the comer leading to the house of "Romy," while IO1 Orellan and the other team
members disembarked a few meters after and positioned themselves in the area to observe.
IO1 Carin and the CI turned at the comer and stopped in front of a house. The CI knocked at the
door and uttered, "ayo, nang Romy.” Gorres came out and invited them to enter. Inside, Lim
was sitting on the sofa while watching the television. When the CI introduced IO1 Carin as a
shabu buyer, Lim nodded and told Gorres to get one inside the bedroom. Gorres stood up and
did as instructed. After he came out, he handed a small medicine box to Lim, who then took
one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic of shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin. In turn, IO1 Carin
paid him with the buy-bust money.

After examining the plastic sachet, IO1 Carin executed a missed call to IO1 Orellan, which was
the pre-arranged signal. The latter, with the rest of the team members, immediately rushed to
Lim's house. When they arrived, IO1 Carin and the CI were standing near the door. They then
entered the house because the gate was opened. IO1 Orellan declared that they were PDEA
agents and informed Lim and Gorres, who were visibly surprised, of their arrest for selling
dangerous drug. They were ordered to put their hands on their heads and to squat on the floor.
IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda rights to them. Thereafter, IO1 Orellan conducted a body
search on both.

The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, with IO1 Orellan in
possession of the seized items. Upon arrival, they "booked" the two accused and prepared the
letters requesting for the laboratory examination on the drug evidence and for the drug test on
the arrested suspects as well as the documents for the filing of the case. Likewise, IO1 Orellan
made the Inventory Receipt of the confiscated items. It was not signed by Lim and Gorres. Also,
there was no signature of an elected public official and the representatives of the Department
of Justice (DOJ) and the media as witnesses. Pictures of both accused and the evidence seized
were taken.

The day after, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered both accused and the drug specimens to
Regional Crime Laboratory Office 10. IO1 Orellan was in possession of the sachets of shabu
from the regional office to the crime lab. PSI Caceres, who was a Forensic Chemist, and Police
Officer 2 (PO2) Bajas7 personally received the letter-requests and the two pieces of heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PSI Caceres got urine samples
from Lim and Gorres and conducted screening and confirmatory tests on them. Based on her
examination, only Lim was found positive for the presence of shabu. The result was shown in
Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM-196 and 197-2010. With respect to the two sachets of white
crystalline substance, both were found to be positive of shabu after a chromatographic
examination was conducted by PSI Caceres. Her findings were reflected in Chemistry Report No.
D-228-2010. PSI Caceres, likewise, put her own marking on the cellophane containing the two
sachets of shabu. After that, she gave them to the evidence custodian. As to the buy-bust
money, the arresting team turned it over to the fiscal's office during the inquest.

After trial, the RTC handed a guilty verdict on Lim for illegal possession and sale of shabu and
acquitted Gorres for lack of sufficient evidence linking him as a conspirator. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the RTC Decision

ISSUE:
Whether or not Romy Lim Miranda may be held guilty liable under R.A 9165

RULING:

The judgment of conviction is reversed and set aside, and Lim should be acquitted based on
reasonable doubt.
At the time of the commission of the crimes, the law applicable is R.A. No. 9165. Section 1(b) of
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements the law, defines
chain of custody as-
The duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation
in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the
identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in
court as evidence, and the final disposition.

The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be
authenticated prior to its admission into evidence. To establish a chain of custody sufficient to
make evidence admissible, the proponent needs only to prove a rational basis from which to
conclude that the evidence is what the party claims it to be. In other words, in a criminal case,
the prosecution must offer sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably
believe that an item still is what the government claims it to be. Specifically in the prosecution
of illegal drugs, the well-established federal evidentiary rule in the United States is that when
the evidence is not readily identifiable and is susceptible to alteration by tampering or
contamination, courts require a more stringent foundation entailing a chain of custody of the
item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been
exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.

Evident, however, is the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ
and the media to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items. In fact,
their signatures do not appear in the Inventory Receipt. Earnest effort to secure the attendance
of the necessary witnesses must be proven.

In this case, IO1 Orellan testified that no members of the media and barangay officials arrived
at the crime scene because it was late at night and it was raining, making it unsafe for them to
wait at Lim's house. IO2 Orcales similarly declared that the inventory was made in the PDEA
office considering that it was late in the evening and there were no available media
representative and barangay officials despite their effort to contact them. He admitted that
there are times when they do not inform the barangay officials prior to their operation as they
might leak the confidential information. We are of the view that these justifications are
unacceptable as there was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.

The prosecution likewise failed to explain why they did not secure the presence of a
representative from the Department the arresting officer, IO1 Orellan, stated in his Affidavit
that they only tried to coordinate with the barangay officials and the media, the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses failed to show that they tried to contact a DOJ representative. The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also failed to establish the details of an earnest effort
to coordinate with and secure presence of the required witnesses. They also failed to explain
why the buy-bust team felt "unsafe" in waiting for the representatives in Lim's house,
considering that the team is composed of at least ten (10) members, and the two accused were
the only persons in the house.
Mindanao State University
College of Law – Iligan Extension

CASE DIGESTS
IN
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

Submitted to:
Judge Arthur L. Abundiente

Submitted by:
May Lann O. Conol-Lamis