SALVADOR ESTIPONA JR. vs HON. FRANK E.

LOBRIGO
GR No. 226679 August 16, 2017

FACTS:
Salvador Estipona vs Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow
the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not
guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being
a first-time offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his
possession. He argued that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates: (1) the intent of the
law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof; (2) the rule-making authority of the
Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; and (3) the
principle of separation of powers among the three equal branches of the government.
However, the prosecution moved for the denial of the motion for being contrary
to Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which is said to be justified by the Congress'
prerogative to choose which offense it would allow plea bargaining. Later, in a
Comment or Opposition dated June 29, 2016, it manifested that it "is open to the
Motion of the accused to enter into plea bargaining to give life to the intent of the law
as provided in paragraph 3, Section 2 of [R.A. No.] 9165, however, with the express
mandate of Section 23 of [R.A. No.] 9165 prohibiting plea bargaining, [it] is left without
any choice but to reject the proposal of the accused."
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is allowed to enter plea bargaining.
HELD:
In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as "a process whereby the
accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case
subject to court approval." There is give-and-take negotiation common in plea
bargaining. The essence of the agreement is that both the prosecution and the
defense make concessions to avoid potential losses. Properly administered, plea
bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief virtues of the system - speed,
economy, and finality - can benefit the accused, the offended party, the prosecution,
and the court.
Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea
bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as
a means to implement an existing right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing
rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy
and redress for a disregard or infraction of them.
The decision to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by the defendant's
appraisal of the prosecution's case against him and by the apparent likelihood of
securing leniency should a guilty plea be offered and accepted. In any case, whether
it be to the offense charged or to a lesser crime, a guilty plea is a "serious and sobering
occasion" inasmuch as it constitutes a waiver of the fundamental rights to be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, to be heard by himself and counsel, to
meet the witnesses face to face, to bail (except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong), to be convicted by
proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not to be compelled to be a witness against
himself.
Yet a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No basic rights are
infringed by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not
do so if he prefers to go to trial. Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer
to plead guilty is not a demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended
party and the prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a
lesser offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged. The reason for this
is that the prosecutor has full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is
to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or graver one, based on what
the evidence on hand can sustain.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS PUYAT MACAPUNDAG Y LABAO
G.R. NO. 225965, MARCH 13, 2017

FACTS:

On or about the 14th of March, 2009, two (2) Informations were filed before the
RTC accusing Macapundag of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165,
Criminal Case No. 81014, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver to P0 [3] GEORGE ARDEDON, who posed,
as buyer, EPHEDRINE weighing 0.01 gram, a dangerous drug, without the
corresponding license or prescription therefore, knowing the same to be such.
According to the prosecution, an informant notified the Caloocan City Police
about 8:00 to 8:30 a.m. on March 14, 2009, that a specific subject known as alias
"Popoy" was selling shabu in Baltazar Street, 10th Avenue, Caloocan City. On the
basis of the tip, Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Christopher Prangan (PCI Prangan)
ordered a buy-bust operation in collaboration with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA), with Police Officer 3 (P03) George Ardedon (P03 Ardedon) as the
poseur-buyer and Senior Police Officer 1 (SPOl Victoriano) and Police Officer 2 (P02)
Jeffred Pacis (P02 Pacis) as back-up officers. After the team's final briefing, they
proceeded to the target area where they saw Macapundag, who was then identified
by the informant as "Popoy." Consequently, P03 Ardedon approached Macapundag
and retorted "Brod, pakuha," followed by "Brod, paiskor naman." Macapundag replied
"Magkano?," to which P03 Ardedon 6 "P02" in some parts of the records. Decision
G.R. No. 225965 responded "Tatlong piso fang," and simultaneously handed the three
(3) marked Pl00.00 bills. Macapundag then took four (4) plastic sachets containing
white crystalline substance, gave one to P03 Ardedon, and returned the other three
(3) back to his pocket. Upon receiving the sachet, P03 Ardedon gave the pre-arranged
signal by holding his nape and then held Macapundag, as the back-up officers rushed
to the scene. P03 Ardedon marked the plastic sachet he purchased from Macapundag,
while SPO 1 Victoriano marked the other three (3) recovered from his pocket.
Thereafter, they brought Macapundag to the police station, where the seized items
were turned over to P02 Randulfo Hipolito (P02 Hipolito), and the investigator on duty.
Later, P02 Hipolito brought the items to the crime laboratory for physical examination.
Eventually, Forensic Chemical Officer-PC! Stella Ebuen (PCI Ebuen) examined the
specimen, which tested positive for ephedrine, a dangerous drug.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Macapundag's conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession
of dangerous drugs, as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of
RA 9165, should be upheld.

HELD:
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the
entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and
appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.
The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such
court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the
penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.
Macapundag was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. In order to secure the conviction
of an accused charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must
prove the: (a) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration;
and (b) delivery of the thing sold and the payment. On the other hand, the prosecution
must establish the following elements to convict an accused charged with illegal
possession of dangerous drugs: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object
identified as a dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and
(c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
Notably, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established
beyond reasonable doubt. In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity
of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody
over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the
dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence
of the corpus delicti. In the Appellant's Brief, Macapundag prayed for his acquittal in
view of the police officers' non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). Particularly, he claims that they did not
make any inventory and failed to take pictures of the confiscated drugs along with him
at the scene of his arrest. There was also no justification given as to why they failed
to comply with these requirements of law. The appeal is meritorious. Section 21, Article
II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure police officers
must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and
evidentiary value. Under the said section, the apprehending team shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized
items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized,
his 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 of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over
to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for
examma ton.
In this case, the prosecution was able to establish that P03 Ardedon (with
respect to the sachet handed over by Macapundag to him) and SPOl Victoriano (with
respect to the three sachets recovered from Macapundag upon his arrest) marked the
seized items immediately at the place of arrest. However, the prosecution's witnesses
failed to state whether or not the police officers inventoried and photographed the
seized sachets in the presence of Macapundag or his representative. Likewise, they
were silent as to the presence of the other required witnesses, i.e., a representative
from the Department of Justice (DOJ), any elected public official, and a member of the
press. In fact, the prosecution did not even offer any inventory of the seized items or
photographs thereof as evidence. In this relation, it is observed that the Evidence
Acknowledgement Receipt and the Affidavit of Attestation, which form part of the
evidence of the prosecution, likewise failed to disclose that the seized items were
actually inventoried or photographed in accordance with the parameters provided by
Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR; thus, their submission cannot constitute
compliance with the law.
In People v. Sanchez, the Court recognized that under varied field conditions,
strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of 9165 may not always be
possible, and ruled that under the implementing guidelines of the said Section, "non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and
custody over said items." However, the Court added that the prosecution bears the
burden of proving justifiable cause. Thus, in People v. Almorfe, the Court stressed that
for the above saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind
the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had
nonetheless been preserved. Also, in People v. De Guzman, it was emphasized that
the justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court
cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.
In the present case, the prosecution did not even bother to explain why the
inventory and photograph of the seized evidence were not made either in the place of
seizure and arrest or at the police station, as required by the IRR in case of warrantless
arrests, or why the marking of the seized item was not made at the place of seizure in
the presence of Macapundag. It was also silent on the absence of a representative
from the DOJ, the media and an elected public official to witness the inventory and
receive copies of the same. Similarly, unexplained was the lack of inventory and
photographs of the seized items. Accordingly, the plurality of the breaches of
procedure committed by the police officers, unacknowledged and unexplained by the
State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused,
as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. It
has been repeated in jurisprudence that the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a
matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural
technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug
suspects. With the foregoing pronouncement, the Court finds petitioner's acquittal in
order. As such, it is unnecessary to delve into the other issues raised in this case.
Hence, Puyat Macapundag y Labao is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA
G.R NO. 231989, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018

FACTS:
The Regional Director asked Cabina, Bonbon, CDO, IO1 Orellan, and his
teammates to gather for a buy-bust operation after a certain "Romy" was caught selling
illegal substances in Zone 7. IO2 Orcales, IO1 Orellan, and IO1 Carin were designated
as team leader, arresting officer, and poseur-buyer, respectively, during the briefing.
IO1 Carin and the C1 alighted from the van near the residence of "Romy" when
the team arrived in the target area at around 10:00 p.m., while IO1 Orellan and the
other team members positioned themselves in the area to observe. When IO1 Carin
and the C1 arrived at the residence, they were greeted by Gorres, who invited them
inside, where Lim was seated on the sofa watching TV. Lim concurred and directed
Gorres to get one inside the bedroom when the C1 introduced IO1 Carin as a
customer. Gorres handed Lim a tiny medicine box, and Lim took one sachet of shabu
and presented it to IO1 Carin, who paid him with the $500 buy-bust money. After
examining the sachet, IO1 Carin made a signal and the team immediately rushed to
Lim’s house. IO1 Orellan declared that they were PDEA agent and informed Lim and
Gorres of their arrest for selling dangerous drug. Thereafter, IO1 Orellan conducted a
body search on both of them. The team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional
Office, with IO1 Orellan in possession of the seized items. Likewise, he made the
Inventory Receipt of the confiscated items, however, it was not assigned by Lim and
Gorres. There also no signature of an elected public official and the representatives of
the DOJ and the media as witnesses.
.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused is liable for the crime of sale of dangerous drugs,
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride despite the absence of witness required under R.A.
No. 9165.

HELD:
No, accused cannot be held liable for the sale of dangerous drugs.
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the 3 witnesses to the
physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to
reason/s such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was
a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs
was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person(s)
acting for and in their behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the
punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence
of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period
required under Art. 125 of the RPC prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers;
(5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips
of confidential assets, prevented the low enforcers from obtaining the presence of the
required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
In this case, a police officer testified that the witnesses did not arrive at the
crime scene because it was late at night and it was raining, making it unsafe for them.
Another police officer testified that the inventory was made in the PDEA office
considering that it was late in the evening and the media representative and barangay
officials are unavailable 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.
The prosecution likewise failed to explain why they did not secure the presence
of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). While 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.
It bears emphasis that the rule that strict adherence to the mandatory
requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR may be
excused as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items are
properly preserved applies not just on arrest and/or seizure by reason of a legitimate
buy-bust operation but also on those lawfully made in air or sea port, detention cell or
national penitentiary, checkpoint, moving vehicle, local or international
package/parcel/mail, or those by virtue of a consented search, stop and frisk (Terry
search), search incident to a lawful arrest, or application of plain view doctrine where
time is of the essence and the arrest and/or seizure is/are not planned, arranged or
scheduled in advance.
Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket
any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth
be enforced as a mandatory policy:

1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their

compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended,
and its IRR.

2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must

state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in
order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/ confiscated i terns.

3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements

or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court.
Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to
determine the (non) existence of probable cause.

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise
its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or
dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5,40
Rule 112, Rules of Court.

Hence, Romy Lim y Miranda is AQUITTED on reasonable doubt.

 PEOPLE vs. OCAMPO
G.R. NO. 232300, 18 AUGUST 2018

Facts:
Police Chief Inspector Allan Rabusa Ruba of the Valenzuela Police Station
formed a team to validate the reports and complaints of the residents of Barangay
Pinalagad and to conduct a surveillance in the said barangay. The team interviewed
a confidential informant, a known resident in the area and learned that a certain "ER,"
herein appellant, is engaged in the illegal trade of marijuana and is usually doing
business inside a billiard hall situated near the Pinalagad Elementary School.
Surveillance ensued, and it was observed that appellant used his bicycle to deliver the
marijuana, engaged a young boy as an errand boy and waited inside the billiard hall
for his customers. A buy bust operation was conducted, wherein appellant was
arrested. After that, the team conducted an inventory at the place of arrest in the
presence of the appellant, and a barangay official. The inventory report was executed
and signed by PO1 Llacuna as the arresting officer, SPO1 Garcia as the investigating
officer, and Kagawad Sherwin De Guzman as the witness. The conduct of the
inventory was also photographed. Immediately after, SPO1 Garcia turned over the
seized items which were sealed and labeled to the Crime Laboratory Office of
Valenzuela City. The items were received by PO1 Pataueg and turned over the same
to Forensic Chemist PCI Cejes who personally received the same evidence and as a
result of her examination, the same items tested positive for marijuana, a dangerous
drug.

Issue:
Whether Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 should apply given the amendatory rule
regarding the said provision was subsequently implemented.

Held:
No. On 15 July 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165.
Among other modifications, it essentially incorporated the saving clause contained in
the IRR, which states that: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an
elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. In the present case, the
old provisions of Section 21 and its IRR shall apply since the alleged crime was
committed before the amendment. Although the requirements stated in Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 have not been strictly followed, the prosecution was able to prove a
justifiable ground for doing so. The refusal of the members of the media to sign the
inventory of the seized items as testified to by PO1 Llacuna can be considered by the
Court as a valid ground to relax the requirement. If, from the examples of justifiable
grounds in not strictly following the requirements in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as
provided by this Court, the presence of the required persons can be dispensed with,
there is more reason to relax the rule in this case because the media representatives
were present but they simply refused to sign the inventory. It needs no elucidation that
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the
context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or
duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof.
 PEOPLE VS. LIBRE, 878 SCRA 260
G.R. NO. 235980 AUGUST 20, 2018

Facts:
The prosecution alleged that on June 5, 2012, the Regional Anti-Illegal Drug
Special Operations Task Group 7 (RAIDSOTG-7), Cebu City received a report from a
confidential informant that Leonila and a cohort, later identified as Joseph, were
engaged in selling shabu in Cebu City and neighboring cities and municipalities. Acting
upon the report, Police Officer 1 Julius Codilla (PO1 Codilla), together with the
confidential informant, proceeded to Colonade Mall at Colon St., Cebu City, where he
was introduced to the accused as buyer of shabu. It was agreed that a sale of 25
grams of shabu for P100,000.00 would take place between twelve (12) o'clock that
midnight and one (1) o'clock in the morning of the next day at a designated place along
Pelaez Extension, Barangay Sta. Cruz, Cebu City. After the meeting, PO1 Codilla
reported the agreement to their office and a buy-bust operation was consequently
organized in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Regional
Office VII. A Pre-Operation Report was then prepared, and the buy-bust money,
consisting of one marked P500.00bill placed on top of wad papers, was entered in the
Police Blotter. Later in the evening, the buy-bust team went to the target area and
positioned themselves at strategic places. PO1 Codilla and the informant waited along
the road for the accused's arrival, carrying with them the boodle money. Soon after,
the accused arrived, gotout from their car, and approached PO1 Codilla. Joseph then
took out a medium-sized transparent plastic sachet of suspected Shabu from the right
pocket of his maong pants and handed the same to PO1 Codilla, who inspected it and
gave the marked money to Leonila, who demanded payment. At that point, PO1
Codilla reversed his ball cap the pre-arranged signal which prompted the other
members of the buy-bust team to rush towards the scene, informed the accused of
their constitutional rights, and arrested them. The team recovered the marked money
from Leonila and likewise seized the accused's vehicle, ignition key, and
cellphones.PO1 Codilla marked the confiscated plastic sachet with "JPL/LPL-BB
06/06/12" and conducted anactual physical inventory at the crime scene. The
inventory was witnessed by representatives from the media and a councilor of
Barangay Sta. Cruz. Photographs of the seized items, the accused, and the witnesses
signing the inventory were taken. Subsequently, the accused were brought to the
RAIDSOTG-7 and eventually detained at Station 3, Cebu City Police Office holding
cell; while the marked sachet was submitted to the Philippine National Police (PNP),
Regional Crime Laboratory Office 7 for examination, and later tested positive for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Joseph and Leonila were charged and
convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drug. CA affirmed.

Issue:
Whether or not the conviction of the accused for violation of Section 5, Article
II of RA 9165 should be upheld.

Held:
In this case, the accused were charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. In
order to properly secure the conviction of an accused charged with Illegal Sale of
Dangerous Drugs, jurisprudence requires that the prosecution must prove the
following: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration;
and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Of these elements, proof that
the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of
the dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti of the crime, are crucial. Consequently, the
prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over the same by accounting for
each link in the chain of custody from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in
court as evidence of the corpus delicti, in order to prove its identity beyond reasonable
doubt.
Considering the importance of ensuring that the dangerous drugs seized from
an accused is the same as that presented in court, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165,
prior to its amendment by RA 10640, and Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provide the procedures that the
apprehending team should observe in the handling of the seized illegal drugs in order
to preserve their identity and integrity as evidence. As part of the procedure, the
apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a
physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom the items were 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 of the same, and, within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation, the seized
drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. According
to jurisprudence, the law requires the presence of an elected public official, as well as
representatives from the DOJ and the media in order to remove any suspicion of
tampering, switching, planting or contamination of evidence which could considerably
affect a case, and thus, ensure that the chain of custody rule is observed. Since the
police actions relative to the handling of the drugs seized in this case were committed
in 2012, and thus prior to RA 9165’s amendment by RA 10640, the presence of all
three witnesses during the conduct of inventory and photography is required .
The failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid
down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the
seizure and custody over the item/s as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution
satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for such noncompliance; and
(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item/s are properly preserved.
 PEOPLE V. BAPTISTA
G.R. NO. 225783, 20 AUGUST 2018
FACTS:
The prosecution alleged that at around five (5) o'clock in the afternoon of
October 3, 2011, a confidential informant (CI) told Intelligence Officer 1 (IO1) Dexter
D. Regaspi (IO1 Regaspi) that a certain Christopher Baptista alias "Toti" was selling
shabu at Brgy. 8, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte and other nearby barangays. The CI and
IO1 Regaspi then arranged a meet-up with Baptista who, however, could not sell them
shabu worth P500.00 at the time because he had no available stock. As such, IO1
Regaspi and the CI returned to the office where they planned a buy-bust operation. At
around seven (7) o'clock in the evening, the buy-bust team went to the transaction
area. IO1 Regaspi gave the marked money to Baptista, who, in turn, handed over one
(1) heat-sealed plastic sachet. After examining the same, IO1 Regaspi executed the
pre-arranged signal by removing his ball cap and immediately declared his authority
as a Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agent, while Police Officer 3 Joey
P. Aninag (PO3 Aninag) and the rest of the buy-bust team rushed to the scene. IO1
Regaspi then marked the plastic sachet with his initials "DDR," but since it was about
to rain, the requisite inventory could not be conducted. Thus, the team went back to
the PDEA Office wherein IO1 Regaspi prepared the inventory of the seized items in
the presence only of a media representative, while IO1 Ranel Cañero took
photographs of the same. After the requests for laboratory and medical examinations
were made, the apprehending officers proceeded to the Ilocos Norte Police Provincial
Crime Laboratory Office, where they were informed that there was no chemist
available.
Eventually, at around 4:30 in the morning of the following day, they proceeded
to the PDEA Regional Office 1 Regional Laboratory in San Fernando, La Union where
the seized item tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
or shabu, a dangerous drug.
Baptista was charged and convicted of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. CA
affirmed.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the chain of custody rule was complied with.
HELD:
No. Records disclose that while the inventory and photography of the seized
plastic sachet were conducted in the presence of Baptista and a representative from
the media, the same were not done in the presence of an elected public official and a
representative from the DOJ as required by the rules prevailing at that time (i.e.,
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640). In their
testimonies, both IO1 Regaspi and PO3 Aninag explicitly admitted these lapses.
In this case, IO1 Regaspi did not provide a sufficient explanation why no
barangay official was present during the requisite inventory and photography. Simply
stating that the witnesses were invited, without more, is too plain and flimsy of an
excuse so as to justify non-compliance with the positive requirements of the law.
Worse, the police officers had no qualms in admitting that they did not even bother
contacting a DOJ representative, who is also a required witness. Verily, as earlier
mentioned, there must be genuine and sufficient efforts to ensure the presence of
these witnesses, else non-compliance with the set procedure would not be excused.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JEFFERSON MEDINAY CRUZ
G.R. No. 225747, December 5, 2018

Facts:
On April 26, 2010, members of the District Anti-Illegal Drug - Special Operation
Task Group, Northern Police District successfully implemented a buy-bust operation
against Medina, during which one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance was recovered from him. Police Officer 3 Honorato Quintero. Jr. then
marked the seized item at the place of arrest, and thereafter. brought it to the Police
station along with Medina. Thereat, Ariosto B. Rana conducted the inventory 7 and
photography of the seized item in the presence of Maeng Santos, a media
representative, and thereafter, prepared the necessary paperworks for examination.
Finally, the seized item was then brought to the crime laboratory where, upon
examination, the contents thereof tested positive for 0.05 gram of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride shabu an dangerous drug.

In defense. Medina denied the charges against him. claiming instead. that while
he was at home at the time of the alleged incident. The RTC found Medina guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged (Illegal Sale of shabu.) On appeal, the
CA affirmed the RTC ruling. Hence this petition.

Issue:
Whether or not Medina's conviction be overturned.

Ruling:
Yes. it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with
moral certainty. considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the
corpus delicti of the crime. Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders
the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal.
The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the
presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his
representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) "a
representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"',
or (b) "an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media." The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to
ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of
switching, planting. or contamination of evidence."
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly
enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a procedural technicality but
as a matter of substantive law." This is because "the law has been crafted by Congress
as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that
the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment."
In this case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement as the conduct
of inventory and photography was not witnessed by an elected public official and a
DOJ representative. This may be easily gleaned from the Inventory of Drug
Seized/ltems which only proves the presence of a media representative.
 PEOPLE V. OLIVA
G.R. NO. 234156, JANUARY 7, 2019
FACTS:

The Chief of Station Anti-Illegal Drugs – Special Operations Task Group (SAID-
SOTG) received a report regarding the sale of dangerous drugs by a certain “Manu”
somewhere in Makati City. As such, a buy-bust operation was planned. When they
arrived at the target area, the Poseur-buyer (a police officer) and the confidential
informant approached Manu. The Poseur-buyer handed Manu the marked money after
the latter demanded payment. Manu then showed Poseur-buyer four (4) transparent
plastic sachets with white crystalline substance and asked the latter to choose one.
Meanwhile, two (2) other persons, Barangot and Manalastas were also at the target
area to buy shabu. Barangot and Manalastas, and the Poseur-buyer each took one
sachet from the four sachets that Manu showed.

Upon receiving the dangerous drug, the Poseur-buyer immediately scratched

his chin, which is the pre-arranged signal to his back-up that the transaction has been
completed. Manu et. al. were arrested. Manu, Barangot and Manalastas were
arrested and brought to the barangay hall where an inventory was conducted and on
the basis thereof, an inventory report was prepared. During the inventory the only one
present to witness the inventory and the marking was an elected official, Barangay
Captain Evelyn Villamor. When the case reached the Supreme Court, Manu et. al.
argue, among others, that the arresting officers failed to immediately conduct a
physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused, their representative or counsel, a representative of the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who are required to sign
the copies of the inventory. Thus, according to Manu et. al., the prosecution failed to
establish every link in the chain of custody of the seized items.

ISSUE:

Whether or not 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 is mandatory.

HELD:

Under the original provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, after seizure and
confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team was required to immediately conduct
a physically inventory and photograph of the same in the presence of (1) the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, (2) a representative from the media and (3) the DOJ, and
(4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof. It is assumed that the presence of these three persons
will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up," i.e., they are "necessary
to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of
illegitimacy or irregularity." Now, the amendatory law mandates that the conduct of
physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1)
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

In this case, the absence of a representative of the National Prosecution

Service or the media during the inventory of the seized items was not justifiably
explained by the prosecution. A review of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes does
not yield any testimony from the arresting officers as to the reason why there was no
representative from the DOJ or the media. The only one present to witness the
inventory and the marking was an elected official, Barangay Captain Evelyn Villamor.
Neither was there any testimony to show that any attempt was made to secure the
presence of the required witness. Thus, theCourt finds it appropriate to acquit the
appellants in this case as their guilt has not been established beyond reasonable
doubt.
 PEOPLE V. AURE
G.R. No. 237809, January 14, 2019

FACTS:
On January 15, 2014, a team composed of members from the District Anti-
Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of the Quezon City Police
District conducted a buy-bust operation against Rosalina during which one (1) plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance was recovered from them. After marking
the plastic sachet at the place of arrest, the apprehending officers, together with
Rosalina and Gina, then proceeded to the DAID-SOTG headquarters in Camp
Karingal, Quezon City, where the seized item was inventoried and photographed in
the presence of a media representative. Thereafter, the seized item was brought to
the crime laboratory where, upon examination, the contents thereof yielded positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Thereafter, an
Information was filed before the RTC charging Rosalina and Gina of violating Section
5, Article II of RA 9165.
Rosalina and Gina denied the charges against them. They claim that they were
just going about their personal matters when two men suddenly grabbed them, and
thereafter, dragged them to their vehicle and took them to Camp Karingal. Thereat,
the men demanded P150,000.00 for their release, but since they could not produce
the said amount, the instant criminal charge was filed against them.
The RTC found Rosalina and Gina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged. The trial court found that the prosecution, through the testimony of the back-
up arresting officer, Police Officer 3 Fernando Salonga (PO3 Salonga), had
established the fact that Rosalina and Gina indeed sold shabu to the poseur-buyer,
Police Officer 3 Miguel Cordero (PO3 Cordero). In this regard, the RTC opined that
the failure to present the testimony of PO3 Cordero is not indispensable to Rosalina
and Gina’ conviction as PO3 Salonga attested to his knowledge of the afore-described
transaction. After their respective motions for reconsideration were denied, they
appealedto the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that despite the absence of the
testimony of PO3 Cordero, the prosecution was nevertheless able to prove Rosalina
and Gina’ commission of the crime charged through the testimony of another member
of the buy-bust team, PO3 Salonga. Further, the CA ruled that the police officers
substantially complied with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 even though PO3 Cordero
was not able to testify as to the links of the chain of custody of the confiscated drug
and in spite of the absence of the Department of Justice (DOJ) representative and the
elected public official during the inventory. Rosalina and Gina appealed to the
Supreme Court (SC) seeking that their conviction be overturned.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of Rosalina and Gina beyond
reasonable doubt.

HELD:
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under
RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with
moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the
corpus delicti of the crime (People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018).
Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State
insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence,
warrants an acquittal (People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018).
To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the
prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the
moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking,
physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately
after seizure and confiscation of the same [People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855
(2015)]. The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in
the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his
representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to
the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, “a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official”;or (b) if after the
amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, “an elected public official and a representative
of the National Prosecution Service or the media.” The law requires the presence of
these witnesses primarily “to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and
remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence” (People v.
Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, September 3, 2018).
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly
enjoined as the same has been regarded “not merely as a procedural technicality but
as a matter of substantive law” (People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13,
2017). This is because “the law has been crafted by Congress as safety precautions
to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed
may be life imprisonment” (People v. Segundo, G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017).
Anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the
prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient
efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to
appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case
basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to
comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Thus, mere statements of
unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are
unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.
In this case, a perusal of the Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property
readily reveals that while the inventory of the plastic sachet purportedly seized from
Rosalina and Gina was conducted in the presence of a media representative, it was
nevertheless done without the presence of any elected public official and DOJ
representative, contrary to the afore-described procedure.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs ERWIN REAFOR
GR NO. 247575 November 16, 2020

FACTS:
Respondent filed a Motion to Plea Bargain, contending that as per A.M. No. 18-
03-16-SC, he may be allowed to plead guilty to a lesser offense of violation of Section
12, Article II of RA 9165, which is punishable only by imprisonment ranging from six
(6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine ranging from P10,000.00 to
P50,000.00. The prosecution opposed the motion, invoking Department of Justice
(DOJ) Circular No. 27, which provides, inter alia, that for the crime charged against
respondent, the acceptable plea bargain is for violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of
RA 9165, punishable by imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day
to twenty (20) years, and a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to P400,000.00.
In an Order, the RTC granted respondent's motion over the opposition of the
prosecution. It opined that since it is only the Supreme Court that has the power to
promulgate rules of procedure, "A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC dated April 10, 2018, which
now forms part of the procedure in all courts, must prevail over the said DOJ Circular
No. 27." Thereafter, respondent was re-arraigned and pled guilty to violation of Section
12, Article II of RA 9165 over the objection of the prosecution and was subsequently
convicted therefor through a Judgment dated September 6, 2018.
The SC 2nd Division annulled the order granting the motion of Edwin Reafor to
plea bargain over the opposition of the prosecution. The Court stressed that “a
defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain,” and a prosecutor does not need
to accept the offer to plea guilty to a lesser offense if he prefers to go to trial and
prosecute the proper offense based on the available evidence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not plea bargain should be considered.
HELD:
Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a
demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the
prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense
that is necessarily included in the offense charged.
The continuing objection on the part of the prosecution based on DOJ Circular
No. 27 will necessarily result in the parties’ failure to arrive at a mutually satisfactory
disposition of the case that may be submitted for the trial court’s approval. In light of
the absence of a mutual agreement to plea bargain, the proper course of action would
be the continuation of the proceedings, rendering the plea bargaining void for lack of
consent of the prosecution.