Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No.

29

Criminal Law 2

People vs. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915

FACTS: On December 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant, known
only as Benjie, that a certain Aling Rosa would be arriving from Baguio City the
following day, December 14, 1988, with a large volume of marijuana. Acting on said
tip, P/Lt. Abello assembled a team composed of P/Lt. Jose Domingo, Sgt. Angel
Sudiacal, Sgt. Oscar Imperial, Sgt. Danilo Santiago and Sgt. Efren Quirubin.

Said team proceeded to West Bajac-Bajac, Olongapo City at around 4:00 in the
afternoon of December 14, 1988 and deployed themselves near the Philippine
National Bank (PNB) building along Rizal Avenue and the Caltex gasoline station.
Dividing themselves into two groups, one group, made up of P/Lt. Abello, P/Lt.
Domingo and the informant posted themselves near the PNB building while the
other group waited near the Caltex gasoline station.

While thus positioned, a Victory Liner Bus with body number 474 and the letters
BGO printed on its front and back bumpers stopped in front of the PNB building at
around 6:30 in the evening of the same day from where two females and a male got
off. It was at this stage that the informant pointed out to the team Aling Rosa who
was then carrying a travelling bag.

Having ascertained that accused-appellant was Aling Rosa, the team approached
her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents. When P/Lt. Abello asked Aling
Rosa about the contents of her bag, the latter handed it to the former.

Upon inspection, the bag was found to contain dried marijuana leaves packed in a
plastic bag marked Cash Katutak. The team confiscated the bag together with the
Victory Liner bus ticket to which Lt. Domingo affixed his signature. Accused-
appellant was then brought to the NARCOM office for investigation where a Receipt
of Property Seized was prepared for the confiscated marijuana leaves.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was an illegal arrest and unreasonable search and
seizure?

RULING: Yes, Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime.

Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Accused-
appellant was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that
would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and
conclude that she was committing a crime. It was only when the informant pointed
to accused-appellant and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana
that she was singled out as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have
apprehended accused-appellant were it not for the furtive finger of the informant
because, as clearly illustrated by the evidence on record, there was no reason
whatsoever for them to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime,
except for the pointing finger of the informant. This the Court could neither sanction
nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was there any semblance of any
compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and warrantless arrests.

Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No. 29

Criminal Law 2

People vs. Angeles, 218 SCRA 352

FACTS: at about 10:00 o'clock in the morning of January 24, 1989, Sgt. Carlos
Guillen was in the headquarters of the 11th Narcotics Command Unit Office at Camp
Capt. Domingo Leonor in Davao City, together with Sgts. Benedicto Redoble,
Ludovico Cuaton and David Lastimosa, when a confidential informant arrived and
told Guillen that a certain "Jun Kuwago," the herein appellant, whose house is in
front of the San Pedro Hospital at Guerrero Street in Davao City, was still active in
the peddling of marijuana in that area.7

Sgt. Guillen forthwith reported the "tip" to his commanding officer, Major Tangan
Kadalim, who then formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. Sgt. Guillen was
designated to act as the poseur-buyer and was given a P20.00 bill to be used in
buying marijuana. The others, namely, Sgts. Redoble, Cuaton and Lastimosa, were
tasked to provide support.8

After the briefing, the team went to their target area at Guerrero Street and, upon
reaching the place at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, proceeded to position
themselves in accordance with their plan. Sgt. Guillen posted himself in front of the
gate of appellant's house and pretended to act as a wouldbe buyer. Sgt. Redoble,
meanwhile, stationed himself inside the canteen of the San Pedro Hospital, and Sgt.
Cuaton stood in front of the said hospital. Sgt. Lastimosa, on the other hand, kept
watch in an alley at the back of appellant's house.9

At approximately 1:15 P.M. appellant came out of his house, whereupon Guillen
asked him, "Pare, mayroon ba tayo diyan?" Appellant then reached into his pocket
and handed to Guillen one cellophane pack containing dried marijuana leaves, and,
in turn, the latter gave the payment of P20.00. Shortly after the exchange, Guillen
made the pre-arranged signal, indicating that the sale had been consummated, by
scratching his head with his right hand.10

Upon seeing the pre-arranged signal, Sgts. Redoble and Cuaton went into action.
However, before they could reach Guillen and the appellant, the latter spied the two
officers and forcibly extricated himself from the clutches of Guillen who by then had
grabbed and was firmly holding appellant's forearm. In the process, appellant was
able to run away towards the back of his house, with the three officers in hot
pursuit. Sgt. Lastimosa was alerted by the commotion and, shortly thereafter he
saw the fleeing Angeles whom he then promptly seized and held by the arms.11

The NARCOM operatives proceeded to frisk appellant and recovered from him an
additional three cellophane packs containing dried marijuana leaves. Sgt. Guillen
also recovered the P20.00 bill that he had earlier handed to Angeles. They then
brought appellant and the confiscated items to their headquarters in Camp Capt.
Domingo Leonor for investigation.12

Appellant predictably presented an altogether different version of what transpired in

that incident of January 24,1989. He testified that at around 1:00 P.M. of that day,
he was sleeping in his house at Guerrero Street when he heard repeated knockings
on the main door thereof. He got up to answer the same and when he opened the
door, he was suddenly collared and brought out of the house by two men, one of
whom was pointing a gun at him. After struggling for some time, he was able to free
himself and he ran back inside his house. He passed through the kitchen door but
his path was blocked, again by two men, who then placed him under arrest. He later
identified them as Sgts. Guillen and Cuaton. After being handcuffed, he was brought
back into his house where he was manhandled by the arresting officers.13

The NARCOM agents allegedly proceeded to search appellant's house for illegal
firearms but were not able to find any. When appellant threatened to file charges
against the officers, he was taken to the PC Headquarters where he was further
interrogated and forced to sign a written statement. Appellant, however, refused to
sign the same and, thereafter, he was indefinitely detained thereat.

ISSUE: Whether or not the possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale?

RULING: Yes.

The general rule is that possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof. The
exception thereto is where, aside from his sale and delivery of the marijuana to the
buyer pursuant to the sales transaction, the seller is further apprehended in
possession of another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in
the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the
seller. Accordingly, in the cases at bar, appellant was properly charged with, and
correctly convicted of, the separate crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of
marijuana.
Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No. 29

Criminal Law 2

People vs. Agulay 566 SCRA 571

FACTS: On 24 August 2002, at around 6:30 in the evening, an informant arrived at

Police Station 5 and reported to the Chief of the Station Drug Enforcement Unit
(SDEU) that a certain Sing had been selling shabu at Brgy. Sta. Lucia, in
Novaliches, Quezon City.

A police entrapment team was formed. PO2 Herrera was assigned as poseur-buyer
and was given a P100.00 bill, which he marked RH, his initials. A pre-operation
report bearing control No. 24-SDEU-02 was made and signed by Police Inspector
(P/Insp.) Palaleo Adag dated 24 August 2002.

The buy-bust team rode in two vehicles, a Space Wagon and a Besta van, with a
group of police officers inside. They stopped along J.P. Rizal St., Sta. Lucia,
Novaliches, Quezon City.

PO2 Herrera and his informant stepped down from their vehicle and walked. The
informant pointed the target pusher to PO2 Herrera. They approached and after
being introduced to Sing, PO2 Herrera bought shabu using the marked P100.00 bill.
Sing gave a small plastic sachet to PO2 Herrera who, thereafter, scratched his head
as a signal. The other police companions of PO2 Herrera, who were deployed
nearby, then rushed to the crime scene. PO2 Herrera grabbed Sing and then frisked
him. PO2 Herrera recovered two (2) plastic sachets from Sings pocket. He also got
the marked money from Sing.

ISSUE: Whether or not buy-bust operations are considered a valid warrantless

arrest?

RULING: Yes, A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. A buy-bust operation is
a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and
effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to
commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding
him to commit the offense. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal
safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction. There are eight (8)
instances when a warrantless search and seizure is valid, to wit: (1) consented
searches; (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest; (3) searches of vessels and aircraft
for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws; (4) searches of moving
vehicles; (5) searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; (6) where
the prohibited articles are in plain view; (7) searches of buildings and premises to
enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and (8) stop and frisk operations.

Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No. 29

Criminal Law 2

People vs. Alivio, 649 SCRA 318

FACTS: The prosecutions case relied on the theory that the police apprehended the
appellants during a buy-bust operation conducted at Alivios residence. During the
buy-bust operation, the police found drug paraphernalia at Alivios residence while a
search on Dela Vegas person yielded one plastic sachet of shabu which the police
seized.

The prosecutions evidence showed that at around 9:30 p.m. of May 20, 2003, the
Pasig City Police received a tip from an asset that one Ariel was rampantly selling
illegal drugs in Bagong Ilog, Pasig City. A buy-bust team was immediately formed in
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The buy-bust money,
which consisted of two (2) 100 peso bills, was prepared and marked with the
symbol, 3L. PO2 Lemuel Lagunay Laro was designated to act as the poseur-buyer.

Together with SPO3 Lemuel Matias and PO1 Allan Mapula, PO2 Laro and the asset
went to the house of Ariel. While the rest of the buy-bust team strategically
positioned themselves at the target area, PO2 Laro and the asset met Ariel. The
asset introduced PO2 Laro to Ariel who was later on identified as Alivio. The asset
told Alivio that they wanted to buy shabu. Alivio asked how much they wanted to
buy, to which the asset replied: dalawang daan lang pre at saka puwede kaming
gumamit dyan? The two were ushered into the second floor of the house where
they saw Dela Vega seated in front of a table with drug paraphernalia. PO2 Laro
then gave the buy-bust money to Alivio who handed it to Dela Vega. The latter then
took out from his pocket one plastic sachet of shabu which he gave to Alivio who
handed it to PO2 Laro. After the exchange, PO2 Laro introduced himself as a police
officer and arrested Alivio and Dela Vega. The asset made a signal for the buy-bust
team to come inside the house. SPO3 Matias searched Dela Vega and found him in
possession of one plastic sachet of shabu. The buy-bust team also retrieved the
drug paraphernalia on top of the table, which paraphernalia they correspondingly
marked. The buy-bust team took Alivio, Dela Vega and the confiscated items to the
police station for investigation. Afterwards, the confiscated items were taken by PO1
Mapula to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The two (2) plastic sachets
tested positive for shabu.

ISSUE: Whether or not the links in the chain of custody was duly established?

RULING: Yes, In ascertaining the identity of the illegal drugs and/or drug
paraphernalia presented in court as the ones actually seized from the accused, the
prosecution must show that: (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1),
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause
provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in the chain
of custody with respect to the confiscated items. Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No.
9165that prescribes the procedure to be observed by the authorities in handling
the illegal drug and/or drug paraphernalia confiscated.

The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of
the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the
accused until the time they are presented in court. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines the chain of custody rule in the
following manner: b. Chain of Custody" means 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 [was] of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer
of custody made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the
final disposition[.]

In this case, although the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, we find that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team
under the chain of custody rule.
(a)The first linkThe records show that the shabu and the drug paraphernalia
were immediately marked at the scene by PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias before they
proceeded to the police station.23 PO2 Laro marked the plastic sachet containing
shabu subject of the buy-bust sale, with AAO 05-20-03 that stood for the initials of
Alivio and the date of the buy-bust sale.24 In turn, SPO3 Matias marked the
retrieved shabu and the drug paraphernalia with his signature.25

(b)The second linkThe records also disclose that after the respective markings
were made, PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias turned over the confiscated items in their
custody at the police station for investigation. As may be gathered from the Request
for Laboratory Examination dated May 20, 2003 and prepared by SPO4 Danilo M.
Tuao, the following specimens were recovered from the appellants and submitted
for laboratory examination:

One (1) pc heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined amount
of white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu bought from suspect marked
as EXH A AAO 05-20-03;

One (1) pc heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined amount
of white crystalline substance marked as EXH B ECDV 05-20-03;

Two (2) pcs (sic) disposable lighter marked as EXH C1 to C2 AAA 05-20-03;

One (1) pc improvised burner marked as EXH D AAO 05-20-03;

One (1) pc improvised waterpipe/tooter marked as EXH E AAO 05-20-03.26

(c)The third linkPO1 Mapula testified that he was the one who delivered the
request for laboratory examination and the specimens to the PNP Crime
Laboratory.27 He also testified that he turned over the specimens to one PO1
Chuidan who received them at 1:00 a.m. of May 21, 2003.28 Upon receipt of the
specimens, PO1 Chuidan stamped the request with a Control No. 1700-03 and
wrote D-940-03.29 In this regard, a facial examination of Chemistry Report No. D-
940-03E shows that the very same specimens bearing the same markings stated in
the police request were subjected to laboratory examination, completed at 3:15
a.m. of May 21, 2003.30

(d)The fourth linkThe prosecution and the defense stipulated that the specimens
examined by the forensic chemist, contained in the request for laboratory
examination, were the ones presented in court. PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias identified
and testified that the shabu and the drug paraphernalia examined were the items
retrieved from the appellants in the buy-bust operation conducted on May 20,
2003.31

Under the circumstances, the prosecutions evidence clearly established an

unbroken link in the chain of custody, thus removing any doubt or suspicion that the
shabu and drug paraphernalia had been altered, substituted or otherwise tampered
with. The unbroken link in the chain of custody also precluded the possibility that a
person, not in the chain, ever gained possession of the seized evidence.

Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No. 29

Criminal Law 2

People vs. Kamad 610 SCRA 295

FACTS: On October 16, 2002, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Drug Enforcement
Unit of the Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig (Taguig police) received
information from an asset that a certain Zaida was engaged in the illegal sale of
shabu at Purok IV, Silverio Compound in Paraaque City. The Taguig police formed a
buy-bust team composed of P/Insp. Antonio Parillas,7 PO3 Christopher Maulit8 (PO3
Maulit), PO1 Manfoste,9 SPO2 Arthur Velasco, and SPO2 Ernesto Sanchez10 (SPO2
Sanchez), as members. SPO2 Sanchez acted as poseur-buyer and received three (3)
one hundred peso bills for use as marked money.

After surveillance of the area, the buy-bust team and their asset proceeded at
around 10:00 p.m. of October 16, 2002 to the target area where they immediately
saw the accused-appellant and Leo. The asset and SPO2 Sanchez approached the
two while the rest of the buy-bust team watched from a distance. The asset
introduced SPO2 Sanchez as a buyer of shabu and the accused-appellant asked him
how much he would buy. SPO2 Sanchez asked for P300.00 worth of shabu and gave
the marked money; the accused-appellant thereafter handed him a plastic sachet
containing a substance suspected to be shabu. SPO2 Sanchez lighted a cigarette to
give the pre-arranged signal for the buy-bust team to approach. SPO2 Sanchez
arrested the accused-appellant and recovered from her the P300.00 marked money.
The buy-bust team arrested Leo who was found in possession of one (1) plastic
sachet also suspected to contain shabu.

The buy-bust team took the accused-appellant and Leo and the recovered plastic
sachets to their office for investigation. The recovered plastic sachets, marked as
ES-1-161009 and ES-2-161002, were then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory
for qualitative examination; the tests yielded positive results for methamphetamine
hydrochloride.

The defense expectedly presented a different version of events.

The accused-appellant denied the charge and claimed that she and Leo were
framed-up. At around 2:30 p.m. of October 16, 2002, the accused-appellant and Leo
went to Leos cousins house. Since Leos cousin was not yet at home, she and Leo
waited. After waiting for an hour, four (4) men wearing civilian clothes and carrying
firearms entered the house and introduced themselves as police officers. The
accused-appellant and Leo were frisked, but nothing was found in their possession.
The police officers asked the accused-appellant where she kept the shabu; she
replied that she was not selling shabu. Afterwards, she and Leo were taken to the
police headquarters where they were again frisked and asked the same question to
which they gave the same response. The police detained Leo and the accused-
appellant for about a day and later brought them to the Prosecutors Office for
inquest without showing them any shabu.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was compliance with the requisites to establish links in
the chain of custody?

RULING: No. We applied this ruling in People v. Garcia, People v. Gum-Oyen, 585
SCRA 668 (2009), People v. Denoman, 596 SCRA 257 (2009) and People v. Coreche,
596 SCRA 350 (2009) where we recognized the following links that must be
established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized
shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty is made 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. The presumption applies when nothing in the
record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of
official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the
presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts
were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty.

Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No. 29

Criminal Law 2

People vs. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957

FACTS: PO2 Sarmiento, 37 years old, married, police officer and a resident of
Sagrada Familia, Hagonoy, Bulacan, and PO3 Magsakay, 40 years old, married,
police officer, and a resident of Sikatuna St., San Gabriel, Malolos, Bulacan, testified
to receiving information from concerned citizens of Sto. Rosario, Malolos, Bulacan,
and reports received by Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
Secretary Joey Lina on the alleged involvement of Danilo alias "Danny" (father of
accused-appellant) and accused-appellant in illegal drugs trade. On the strength of
this confidential information, a surveillance operation was conducted by operatives
of the Malolos Police Station in Malolos, Bulacan, two days before the buy-bust
operation. Results of the surveillance operation were relayed to the chief of police,
who thereafter instructed them to conduct a buy-bust operation against accused-
appellant and Danilo. The team was composed of PO2 Sarmiento, PO1 Michael Silla,
PO3 Magsakay, and a police asset.

On 10 August 2003, a briefing was conducted among the members of the buy-bust
team. During said briefing, PO2 Sarmiento placed the markings "LCS," which
correspond to his initials, on the buy-bust money. The marked money consisted of
three P100.00 bills and one P50.00 bill. A police asset was also designated as
poseur-buyer. Both the buy-bust operation and serial numbers of the bills to be used
as buy-bust money were recorded in the police blotter. Prior to proceeding with the
operation, the buy-bust team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) and was assigned a control number for the operation, with its pre-
operational sheet signed by Hashim Maung of PDEA.

After being briefed on the operation, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target
site. While the members of the team positioned themselves at the alley leading
towards the house of accused-appellant, the police asset went directly to the gate
of Danilo and accused-appellant. The gate was approximately ten meters away from
them.

From where they were standing, the police officers saw the police asset knocking at
the gate. Thereupon, Danilo stepped out. The police asset handed the marked
money to Danilo. Danilo closed the gate and went inside the house. Moments later,
Grace (accused-appellant) went out and handed something to the police asset.
Indicating the sale was consummated, the police asset then executed his pre-
arranged signal by touching his hair with his right hand. The police officers rushed
towards the gate but accused-appellant noticed them and closed the gate. PO2
Sarmiento pushed open the gate. As PO2 Sarmiento was entering the compound, he
saw a man holding a "gulok." It turned out that the man holding the "gulok" or bolo
was one of Danilos sons, Vergel Ventura, who attempted to hack PO2 Sarmiento.
PO2 Sarmiento informed him that he was a police officer, but Vergel still tried to
hack him with the bolo causing him to seek cover outside the gate while parrying
the attack. PO3 Magsakay drew his gun and poked it at Vergel, who ran inside the
house. PO2 Sarmiento entered the gate and arrested Danilo, while PO2 Magsakay
arrested accused-appellant. PO1 Silla arrested Vergel. After frisking Danilo, PO2
Sarmiento recovered from him the marked money used for the buy-bust operation.
The police asset handed to PO2 Sarmiento the shabu he bought from accused-
appellant. The Venturas were apprised of their rights and informed of the offense
committed. Thereafter, the suspects were brought to the police station for further
investigation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the chain of custody rule complied with?

RULING: Yes, here is no broken chain in the custody of the seized item, found to be
shabu, from the time the police asset turned it over to PO3 Magsakay, to the time it
was turned over to the investigating officer, and up to the time it was brought to the
forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination.

The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under Section 21,
paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as follows:

(1) The apprehending officer/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 (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof.

Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act
No. 9165, which implements said provision, stipulates:

(a) The apprehending officer/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 (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given
a copy thereof: x x x Provided, further that 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.
Under the same proviso, non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under
justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.

Clearly, the purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules is centered
on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

All documentary, testimonial, and object pieces of evidence, including the markings
on the plastic sachet containing the shabu, prove that the substance tested by the
forensic chemist, whose laboratory tests were well-documented, was the same as
that taken from accused-appellant. The foregoing evidence established and
preserved the identity of the confiscated shabu. Moreover, the integrity of the
evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will,
or proof that the evidence has been tampered with. 38 Accused-appellant, in this
case, bears the burden to make some showing that the evidence was tampered or
meddled with, to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits
by public officers and a presumption that they properly discharged their duties.

Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No. 29

Criminal Law 2

People vs. Aguilar, 696 SCRA 838

FACTS: According to PO2 Medrano, a week prior to Aguilars arrest on November

30, 2004, he had already received some phone calls from concerned citizens
regarding the drug-dealing activities of one Baby Mata at Pildera, Pasay City. PO2
Medrano verified the information by calling on Eva, his informant, who was also a
drug user. Eva confirmed that she personally knew Baby Mata, who was her regular
drug-supplier. PO2 Medrano thereafter learned of Baby Matas residence at Road IV
near the barangay hall, and that she was plying her trade at Road I. Although he
placed Baby Mata under surveillance, PO2 Medrano admitted that he did not
actually see her selling drugs to customers.

On November 30, 2004, a team, led by Senior Police Officer (SPO)2 Rey Millare, was
formed to conduct an entrapment operation against Aguilar. The team submitted a
pre-operation report to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and PO2
Medrano was designated as the poseur-buyer. He was provided with two P500.00
bills, the serial numbers of which he noted and thereafter marked with JG, the
initials of P/Supt. Jose Gentiles, the Chief of the District Intelligence and
Investigation Branch. At around 6:20 in the evening, the team was in place at
Pildera to conduct the buy-bust operation. With Eva, PO2 Medrano went to Road I,
where they saw Baby Mata talking to someone. When the person left, Eva
approached Baby Mata and after about five minutes, waved at PO2 Medrano to
come over. Eva introduced PO2 Medrano as a security guard and a fellow scorer.
Baby Mata then asked how much PO2 Medrano wanted, to which he answered
isang bulig lang, which was half a gram of shabu, worth P1,000.00. Upon Baby
Matas request, PO2 Medrano gave her the two premarked P500.00 bills, which she
took with her left hand. Baby Mata, with her right hand, thereafter reached for a
plastic sachet containing crystalline substance from the right pocket of her jeans,
and handed it to PO2 Medrano. After examining the sachet, PO2 Medrano pocketed
the shabu and pressed the call button of his mobile phone, to signal his team that
the sale had been consummated. PO2 Benedicto A. Mendoza (Mendoza), who was
then only seven to eight meters away, rushed towards them and arrested Baby
Mata. The police officers immediately introduced themselves as such, showed Baby
Mata their identification cards, and apprised her of her constitutional rights. PO2
Medrano confiscated the buy-bust money he earlier handed Baby Mata, which were
still in her left hand, and another sachet of shabu, which turned up after she was
ordered to empty her pockets. PO2 Medrano accordingly marked the two sachets of
shabu with RM-1 and RM-2 and thereafter brought Baby Mata to the Southern
Police District Station at Fort Bonifacio, Taguig.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was animus possidendi?

RULING:

Yes, With respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, this Court
finds that the prosecution sufficiently established the following elements: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited
or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the drug. Aside from the shabu Aguilar sold to PO2
Medrano, another sachet of shabu was recovered in her possession. Mere
possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to
possess, animus possidendi, sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory
explanation of such possession. The burden of evidence, thus, is shifted to the
accused to explain the absence of intent to possess. Aguilar miserably failed to
discharge such burden.
Name: Patricia Marinela D. Palileo Class Student No. 29

Criminal Law 2

People vs. Dela Cruz, 571 SCRA 469,

FACTS: In the morning of October 20, 2002, an informant tipped off the Drug
Enforcement Unit of the Marikina Police Station that wanted drug pusher Wifredo
Loilo alias Boy Bicol was at his nipa hut hideout in San Mateo, Rizal. A team was
organized to arrest Boy Bicol. Once there, they saw Boy Bicol by a table talking with
accused-appellant. They shouted Boy Bicol sumuko ka na may warrant of arrest ka.
(Surrender yourself Boy Bicol you have a warrant of arrest.) Upon hearing this, Boy
Bicol engaged them in a shootout and was fatally shot. Accused-appellant was seen
holding a shotgun through a window. He dropped his shotgun when a police officer
pointed his firearm at him. The team entered the nipa hut and apprehended
accused-appellant. They saw a plastic bag of suspected shabu, a digital weighing
scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines lying on the table. PO1
Calanoga, Jr. put the markings CVDC, the initials of accused-appellant, on the bag
containing the seized drug.

Accused-appellant was subsequently arrested. The substance seized from the

hideout was sent to the Philippine National Police crime laboratory for examination
and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. He was thus
separately indicted for violation of RA 9165 and for illegal possession of firearm.

ISSUE: Whether or not there was actual or constructive possession?

RULING: No, The prosecution in this case clearly failed to show all the elements of
the crime absent a showing of either actual or constructive possession by the
accused-appellant.

Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or control of
the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists whenthe drug is
under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise
dominion and control over the place where it is found.Exclusive possession or
control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise
control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with
another. (People vs. Lagman)