APPELLEE'S BRIEF

People Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 2 of 14 x x
Republic of the Philippines
1. COURT OF APPEALS
Manila

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appe//ee,

- versus - CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410

MICHAEL JAMES HILL,
Accused-Appe//ant.
x x

APPELEE’S BRIEF
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. Accused-appellant Lucman D. Manamparan (appellant)
faced charges for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 before the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 79. The accusatory portions of the two
Informations read as follows:

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-20-09998-CR:

"On or about December 18, 2020, in Quezon

City, Philippines, the accused, without authority
of law, willfully and unlawfully sold, traded,
administered, dispensed, delivered, distributed,
or transported one transparent plastic sachet
marked BB-PAV-LDM-12-18-20 containing 4.70
grams of white crystalline substance, which was
later confirmed through qualitative examination
to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug."

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-20-09999-CR:

"On or about December 18, 2020, in Quezon

City, Philippines, the accused, not being
authorized by law to possess or use any
dangerous drug, willfully and unlawfully had in
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 3 of 14
his possession and control two heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets marked PAV-LDM-
12-18-20-A containing 4.84 grams and PAV-
LDM-12-18-20-B containing 0.79 grams of
white crystalline substance, with a total net
weight of 5.63 grams, which was later
confirmed through qualitative examination to
be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug."

2. During the arraignment, the appellant pleaded "NOT

GUILTY," and the pre-trial proceeded. The trial on the merits
took place, and on March 10, 2022, the court rendered a
Joint Judgment, finding the appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.

3. In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-20-09998-CR, Lucman

Manamparan was convicted of violating Section 5, Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentenced to life
imprisonment, along with a fine of Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00). In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-20-
09999-CR, Lucman Manamparan was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165. He was sentenced to twenty (20)
years and one (1) day of imprisonment, accompanied by a
fine of Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00). The
dispositive portion of which reads:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-20-09998-CR, accused
LUCMAN MANAMPARAN y DIMASANGKAY is hereby
found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. He is sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. R-QZN-20-09999-CR, accused
LUCMAN MANAMPARAN y DIMASANGKAY is hereby
found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of
violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. He is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twenty
(20) years and one (1) day and to pay a fine of Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
The Branch Clerk is directed to immediately turn over
to the Chief of PDEA Crime Laboratory the subject
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 4 of 14 x x
drugs in these cases covered by Chemistry Report No.
D-1839-2020, which are confiscated in favor of the
government, to be disposed of in strict conformity with
the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing
rules and regulations on the matter.
The One thousand peso bill with serial number
JD424401 is confiscated in favor of the government,
and the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to
deposit/remit it to the General Fund.
SO ORDERED."

4. Aggrieved by the judgment, the accused filed the

present appeal.

COUNTER-STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. On December 18, 2020, at about 4:00 o'clock in the

afternoon, a confidential informant arrived at Police Station 6
Batasan, Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU), to report
that a certain Nonoy was distributing illegal drugs in their
area. Chief SDEU Police Captain Francisco Lucena instructed
the informant to contact Nonoy and put the call on
loudspeaker. The informant ordered one bulto of shabu
worth Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00) from Nonoy, and
they agreed to meet along Commonwealth Avenue corner
Villongco Street, Barangay Commonwealth, Quezon City.

6. After the conversation, Chief SDEU Lucena instructed

the station commander to plan and conduct an anti-illegal
drug operation. A briefing was conducted, and Patrolman
Paul Alvin Valerio was designated as the poseur-buyer, with
Patrolman Francisco Moreno as his immediate back-up.
Patrolman Valerio was provided with buy-bust money and
fake money bills to make it appear as Eleven Thousand
Pesos (P11,000.00). Their pre-arranged signal was the
removal of Patrolman Valerio's facemask.

7. On the same day, at around 10:00 in the evening, the

buy-bust team, along with the confidential informant,
proceeded to Villongco Street, Barangay Commonwealth,
Quezon City. They waited for about thirty minutes until
Nonoy arrived in his Hyundai Accent. Patrolman Valerio and
the informant approached Nonoy, where the informant
introduced Patrolman Valerio as the buyer. The accused
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 5 of 14
handed a small, heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu to
Patrolman Valerio and demanded payment. Patrolman
Valerio gave the buy-bust money and removed his facemask
as the pre-arranged signal.

8. However, upon seeing Patrolman Valerio remove his

facemask, the accused became suspicious and fired a
gunshot at Patrolman Valerio and the informant. Patrolman
Valerio and Patrolman Moreno chased the accused and
eventually cornered him along Kasunduan Street, Barangay
Commonwealth, Quezon City. Patrolman Moreno
apprehended Nonoy and recovered two plastic sachets of
suspected shabu, two cellphones, and a caliber .38 gun from
him. Pre-markings on the evidence were conducted at the
place of arrest.

9. Patrolman Valerio conducted the markings and physical

inventory of the seized items in the presence of the accused,
Kagawad Elmer Buena, and media representative
Christopher Yu. The pieces of evidence were then presented
to Police Corporal Anthony Lubos at the police station. The
next day, Patrolman Valerio and Patrolman Moreno brought
the pieces of evidence, along with the Request for
Laboratory Examination, to the Quezon City Police District
(QCPD) Crime Laboratory. Chemist Rhea Fe Dela Cruz-Alviar
conducted a qualitative examination, confirming the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.

10. The sealed specimens were then turned over to

the evidence custodian, Police Officer 2 Junia Tuccad, and
later retrieved and submitted to the court as per the
received subpoena on October 5, 2021.

ARGUMENT
Appellant's guilt for the
offenses charged was
proven beyond reasonable
doubt since all the
essential elements of
illegal sale and
possession of shabu were
duly established by the
prosecution.

11. To establish the guilt of the appellant in this case,

we must analyze the elements of the offenses of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs
and examine how they apply to the facts presented.
12. Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: Under Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the elements for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs are as follows:
13. The identity of the buyer and seller, the object of
the sale, and its consideration.
14. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.
15. In this case, the facts reveal that a confidential
informant provided information to Chief SDEU Police Captain
Francisco Lucena regarding the appellant's involvement in
distributing illegal drugs. The informant ordered shabu from
the appellant, referred to as "Nonoy," with a pre-arranged
meeting place and agreed price. The informant contacted
Nonoy and put the call on loudspeaker, which Chief SDEU
Lucena authorized. Patrolman Paul Alvin Valerio acted as the
poseur-buyer, engaged in the transaction with Nonoy, and
purchased a small, heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu from
him in exchange for the buy-bust money.
16. The delivery of the dangerous drug and the
payment were successfully accomplished, as evidenced by the
testimony of Patrolman Valerio and the recovery of the
marked sachet of shabu. Therefore, the elements of the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs have been met.
17. Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs: To establish
the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
prosecution must prove the following elements:
18. The appellant was in possession of dangerous
drugs.
19. Such possession was not authorized by law.
20. The appellant freely and consciously possessed the
said drug.
21. In this case, the facts indicate that upon the arrival
of Nonoy in his Hyundai Accent, Patrolman Valerio, along with
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 7 of 14
x x

the informant, approached him. The appellant, identified as

Nonoy, handed a small, heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu to
Patrolman Valerio and demanded payment. Patrolman Valerio
provided the buy-bust money as agreed upon.
22. The appellant's possession of the dangerous drugs
has been established through the testimony of Patrolman
Valerio and the recovery of two plastic sachets of suspected
shabu from the appellant's person during his apprehension.
There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant had any
lawful authority to possess the drugs found in his possession.
Moreover, the appellant's possession of the dangerous drugs
was voluntary and conscious, as indicated by his active
participation in the transaction. Therefore, the elements of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs have been satisfied.
23. The Trial Court's Assessment of Witness
Testimonies:
24. In evaluating the testimonies of witnesses,
particularly in cases involving illegal drugs, it is well-
established that trial courts are in the best position to assess
the credibility and reliability of the witnesses. The trial court,
being able to directly observe the demeanor, manner of
testifying, and candor of the witnesses, is better equipped to
evaluate their credibility and determine the weight to be
accorded to their testimonies.
25. In this case, Patrolman Valerio testified as the
poseur-buyer and provided detailed accounts of the buy-bust
operation. His testimony played a crucial role in establishing
the elements of the offenses charged. As the trial court had
the opportunity to observe Patrolman Valerio's demeanor and
assess the consistency and coherence of his testimony, it is
within its discretion to give weight and credence to his
account.
26. Guilty Attempts to Flee While Innocent Remains
Steadfast:
27. It is worth noting that the appellant's actions upon
the removal of Patrolman Valerio's facemask are significant.
Upon witnessing this signal, the appellant became suspicious
and fired a gunshot, indicating an intent to escape or resist
arrest. Such a reaction is commonly associated with a guilty
party attempting to evade apprehension.
28. Conversely, an innocent person would likely remain
steadfast or cooperate with the authorities when faced with a

G.R. No.
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 8 of 14
x x

lawful operation. The appellant's attempt to flee, combined

with the recovery of additional sachets of suspected shabu
and a firearm during his apprehension, further strengthens
the case against him.
29. In conclusion, based on the coherent application of
legal concepts to the facts of the case, the elements of the
offenses of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs have been established. The
prosecution presented compelling evidence, including the
testimony of Patrolman Valerio, the recovered marked sachets
of shabu, and the confirmation of the substance by the crime
laboratory.
30. Considering the trial court's discretion in assessing
witness testimonies, the guilt of the appellant beyond a
reasonable doubt for both offenses is reasonably supported by
the evidence. Furthermore, the appellant's attempt to flee
upon the removal of the poseur-buyer's facemask adds weight
to the prosecution's case. Thus, it is appropriate for the court
to find the appellant guilty based on the evidence and legal
principles presented.
31.
32.
33.
34. To establish the guilt of the accused in this case, it
is crucial to examine the elements of the offenses charged,
namely illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession
of dangerous drugs, and analyze how they apply to the facts
presented. Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: Under Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the elements for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs are as follows:

a. The identity of the buyer and seller, the object of

the sale, and its consideration.
b. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.

35. In this case, the prosecution has satisfactorily

established these elements. Patrolman Paul Arvin Valerio,
acting as the poseur-buyer, testified that he engaged in a
transaction with the accused, who sold him shabu, a
dangerous drug. The transaction was meticulously detailed,
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 9 of 14
x x

from the initial report received by the police, the arrangement

made between the buyer and seller, the actual exchange of
the drugs and money, to the confirmation of the substance as
a dangerous drug by the crime laboratory.

36. Furthermore, the prosecution provided evidence

that the accused delivered the shabu to Patrolman Valerio and
received payment in return. The marked sachet of shabu
presented in court, along with the testimony of Patrolman
Valerio, serves as direct evidence of the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs: To
successfully prosecute an offense of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following
elements:

a. The accused was in possession of dangerous drugs.

b. Such possession was not authorized by law.
c. The accused freely and consciously possessed the
said drug.
37. In this case, the prosecution has effectively proven
these elements. During the buy-bust operation, the accused
was apprehended in possession of shabu, which was
confirmed to be a dangerous drug by the crime laboratory.
There is no evidence suggesting that the accused had any
lawful authority to possess the drugs found in his possession.

38. Moreover, the accused's possession of the

dangerous drugs was proven to be voluntary and conscious.
The testimony of Patrolman Valerio, along with the
confiscated sachets of shabu, provides clear evidence that the
accused had direct control and knowledge of the drugs.

39. In conclusion, the elements required to establish

the offenses of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs have been satisfactorily met.
The prosecution has presented compelling evidence, including
the testimony of Patrolman Valerio, the marked sachets of
shabu, and the confirmation of the substance by the crime
laboratory. These pieces of evidence support the conclusion
that the accused engaged in the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs and unlawfully possessed the said drugs.

G.R. No.
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 10 of 14
x x

6.

7.In his Brief, appellant mainly questions the credibility of

prosecution witness Pat. Rowell Rivera. He insists that there was
no prior agreement between him and Pat. Rivera for the sale of
shabu on April 10, 2020 and that no buy-bust operation actually
took place. Allegedly, he was a victim of frame-up because the
evidence against him was planted.

8. Appellant's arguments are devoid of merit.

9. The prosecution, through the testimony of Pat. Rivera,

adequately established the fact that there was a legally conducted
buy-bust operation. Pat. Rivera's testimony clearly showed that
their confidential informant reported the drug operations of
appellant; that the buy-bust team planned a buy-bust operation; that
the said operation was indeed conducted; that a meeting took place
among Pat. Rivera, the confidential informant, and appellant where
they agreed on the sale of shabu; that the sale of shabu actually
took place; and that the buy-bust operation resulted in the arrest of
appellant and the confiscation of three heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance suspected to
be shabu.

10. The record of this case likewise shows that what

actually transpired was an entrapment and not a frame-up. The
buy-bust team never planted evidence to incriminate appellant nor
did they induce him to perform any prohibited act which he would
never have done but for such inducement. On the contrary, the sale
of shabu was made by him on his own volition and the buy-bust
team merely devised a means to obtain evidence thereof.

11. Thus, contrary to what appellant would like this

Honorable Court to believe, appellant was caught in a buybust
operation, a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to
effect the apprehension of a criminal in the act of committing an
offense. Entrapment is allowed when it is undertaken with due
regard to constitutional and legal safeguards. 1 It has repeatedly
1 People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999. 7 People
v. Montano, GR. No. 130836, August 11, 2000.
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 11 of 14
x x

been accepted as a valid means of arresting violators of the

Dangerous Drugs Law. 7

12. In People v. Doria 2 the Supreme Court declared:

We therefore stress that the objective test in buy-bust
operations demands that the details of the purported transaction
must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the
initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the
offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration
until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal
drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial contact
was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to
purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the
delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or
the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts
to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to
commit an offense.

13. Applying this "objective test" to the case at bar, the

RTC correctly upheld the validity of the entrapment as shown by
the testimony of Pat. Rivera. His testimony showed the complete
details of the transaction, from the initial contact with appellant to
the consummation of the sale and his eventual arrest.

14. It bears stressing that what is material to the prosecution

for illegal sale of drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
evidence of corpus delicti. 3 Both were satisfactorily proven in the
case at bar. Pat. Rivera was able to testify positively and
categorically that the transaction or sale actually took place. The
shabu subject of the sale was likewise positively identified by Pat.
Rivera when presented in court.
15. Accordingly, the elements necessary for the successful
prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs as laid down in People v.
Montan0 45 have been met in this case, thus:

a. The buyer was clearly identified as Pat. Rowell Rivera

and the seller as appellant;

2 Supra.
3 People v. Boco, GR. No. 129676, June 23, 1999.
4 Supra.
5 People v. Miranda, GR. No. 209338, June 29, 2015.

G.R. No.
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 12 of 14
x x

b. The object of the sale was established to be shabu;

c.The object of the crime was in fact delivered by appellant

to the police poseur-buyer; and

d.
Payment was made using marked money, which was
given to appellant during the buy-bust operation.

15. There is likewise no doubt that the charge of illegal

possession of shabu in Criminal Case No. R-ANG-20011730CR
was proven beyond reasonable doubt, appellant having been caught
knowingly carrying with him two heatsealed transparent plastic
sachets containing shabu - without legal authority - at the time of
the buy-bust operation. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
such as shabu, the elements are: (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 said drug. 11 All these
circumstances are present in the case at bar.

16. In a long line of cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that
the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation
deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption that they have
performed their duties regularly. This presumption can be
overturned if clear and convincing evidence is presented to prove
either of two things: (1) that they were not properly performing
their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive. 6
17. In this case, the members of the buy-bust team properly
performed their duties in the conduct of the buy-bust operation.

18. Likewise, the members of the buy-bust team were not

inspired by any improper motive. No evidence was presented to
show that appellant's arrest was resorted to in order to harass,
extort, or abuse. Appellant did not cite any previous
misunderstanding that could have motivated the police officers to
falsely charge him with serious offenses. Evidently, there is no
evidence to show that the police officers were motivated by any ill
reason other than their official duty to curb the sale of prohibited
drugs.

6 People v. Valencia, 143032, October 14, 2002.

APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 13 of 14
x x

19. Appellant's
argument that the presentation of
confidential informant is indispensable to corroborate Pat. Rivera's
testimony is specious.

20. The failure to present the informer did not diminish the
integrity of the testimony of Pat. Rivera. Informers are almost
always never presented in court because of the need to preserve
their invaluable service to the police. 13 ice officers rarely, if ever,
remove the cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their
informers since their usefulness will be over the moment they are
presented in court. Moreover, drug dealers do not look kindly upon
squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as much as
permitted, their identities are kept secret. 14

21. Here, the testimony of Pat. Rivera who acted as the

poseur-buyer was candid, straightforward, convincing, and
narrated in detail the circumstances of the buy-bust operation.
Thus, the fact that the prosecution did not present the informant as
a corroborative witness is of no moment. Anyway, Pat. Rivera
testified on the actual incident and was able to positively identify
appellant as the drug pusher. In effect, he has given the prosecution
all the evidence it needed to substantiate the subject indictment.

13
People v. Uy, 327 SCRA 335 (2000).
14
People v. Nicolas, 241 SCRA 67 (1995).

22. Notably, appellant's defenses which are anchored

mainly on bare denial and frame-up cannot be given
credence. These defenses do not have more evidentiary
weight than the positive assertions of the prosecution witness.
His defenses are unavailing considering that he was caught in
flagrante delicto in a legitimate buy-bust operation. The
Supreme Court has ruled that the defense of denial or
frameup, 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. 7

23. Besides, appellant should have filed the proper

charges against the police officers if he was indeed a victim
7 GR.
People v. Ygot, No. 210715, July 18, 2016.

G.R. No.
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 14 of 14
x x

of frame-up. The fact that no administrative or criminal

charges were filed lends cogency to the conclusion that the
alleged frame-up was merely concocted as a defense scheme.
8

The prosecution was able to

establish an unbroken link in
the custody of the seized
shabu.

24. In this case, the chain of custody of the seized

items was clearly shown not to have been broken. As aptly
declared by the RTC:
As testified to by the Prosecution witness, after the
consummation of the buy-bust operation, they conducted on the
same place of operation the marking, physical inventory, and
photography of the seized items immediately after seizure and
confiscation of the same, in the presence of accused Hill, after
the arrival of the three (3) insulating witnesses who arrived three
(3) minutes thereafter since they were merely on standby 15
meters away from the place of operation. With such testimony,
they clearly complied with the mandatory procedures laid down
in Section 21 of Republic Act 9165, as amended.

8 People v. Perondo, 193855, February 18, 2015.

APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 15 of 14
x x

25. When the prosecution presented the marked

specimens in court, Pat. Rivera positively identified them to
be the same items purchased and seized from appellant.

26. It is thus clear that the specimens marked, tested,

and offered in evidence were the same items that were
purchased and retrieved from appellant during the buy-bust
operation. The prosecution was able to establish with moral
certainty and prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was
an unbroken chain of custody over the recovered illegal
drugs, from the time that these were lawfully seized and
came into the possession of the apprehending officers up to
the time that these were presented and offered in evidence
before the RTC.

27. In People v. Ygot, the Supreme Court has

9

previously ruled that as long as the State can show by record

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

28. In People v. Taglucop, 10

the Supreme Court
upheld the conviction of therein accused in spite of the fact
that it was the arresting officer, and not the investigator, who
delivered the seized drugs to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination as in this case. The Court declared:
The evidence established beyond cavil that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The
prosecution was able to prove that, from the time of seizure and
confiscation, SP02 Gilbuena remained in possession of the
drugs, until their marking and inventory, and their delivery to
the crime laboratory for examination, constituting the first and
second links. The confiscated drugs were received by POI
Paltep who later turned over the same to PCI Banogon who
conducted the qualitative and quantitative examination, which
constituted the third link. PCI Banogon issued Chemistry
Report No. D605-2016 stating that the white crystalline
substance in the plastic sachets yielded positive for
9 Supra.
10 243577, March 15, 2022.

G.R. No.
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 16 of 14
x x

methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The seized

items stayed with PCI Banogon until these were presented in
court, which constituted the fourth link.

29. Contrary to appellant's claim, the non-presentation

of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the prosecution's case.
In view of the stipulations of the parties, the testimony of the
forensic chemist as to how the seized items were handled
and taken into custody may be dispensed with. The ruling in
People v. Macaspac, et a/. 11 is apropos:
In People v. Moner, the Court affirmed the verdict of
conviction. The Court noted that in lieu of the forensic chemist's
testimony, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that the
forensic chemist received the specimens for examination and her
findings revealed the same yielded positive results for shabu.

In People v. Cutara, the forensic chemist did not testify in

court. In lieu of his testimony, the prosecution offered as
evidence his chemistry report showing that the seized item went
through qualitative examination and yielded positive for shabu,
and it was the same item presented in court as evidence. The
Court held that the prosecution successfully established the links
in the chain of custody over the seized drugs from the time of its
confiscation, to its qualitative examination at the crime
laboratory, up until it was offered in evidence. The totality of
the prosecution's evidence showed that the integrity of the
seized items had been duly preserved and its chain of custody
had been accounted for.

Too, in People v. Galicia, the Court decreed that the

prosecution's failure to present the forensic chemist to testify on
how the seized items were handled and taken into custody was
not fatal to the admissibility of the seized drugs. People v.
Padua further elucidated, viz.:

Further, not all people who came into contact with the
seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in
Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same
that imposes such requirement. As long as the chain of custody
of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been
broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly
the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every
person who came into possession of the drugs should take the
witness stand. x x x

11 246165, November 28, 2019.

APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 17 of 14
x x

30. All told, the prosecution had sufficiently established

appellant's guilt for the offenses charged beyond reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, the defense of denial and frameup as well as the
other points advanced by appellant failed to cast even a scintilla of
doubt on his culpability. Accordingly, there exists no cogent reason
to reverse or even modify the findings of the RTC giving credence
to the evidence of the prosecution.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the appealed
Decision, being in accord with the law and the evidence on record,
be AFFIRMED in toto.
Makati City, May 5, 2023.

MENARDO 1. GUEVARRA
Solicitor Genera/
Roll No. 33957
IBP No. 292878; January 9, 2023; Bulacan
MCLE Exemption No. V11-EXD000076; August 13, 2019
z//%-ÃŽZ//-Zvd------——_
B. MARC A. CANUTO
Assistant Solicitor Genera/
Roll No. 42237
IBP Lifetime No. 09130; April 28, 2010
MCLE Exemption No. VI I-OSG 0043; April 21, 2022

O. GO
Associate Solicitor Ill
Roll No. 63750
IBP Lifetime No. 012822; May 12, 2014
MCLE Compliance No. \/11-0023857; October 14, 2022
Email address: dgo@osg.gov.ph

G.R. No.
APPELLEE'S BRIEF
People v. Hill
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 16410 Page 18 14
Of
x x

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
Trunkline No. (02) 8988-1674
Email : efile@osg.gov.ph

Public Attorney's Office

5th Floor, DOJ Agencies Building
NIA Rod corner East Avenue
Diliman 1101, Quezon City