spl

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. SONIA BERNEL NUARIN, Appellant.

G.R. No. 188698 July 22, 2015
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
PO1 Manalo testified that members of the District Drug Enforcement Group of
the Central Police District went to Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City, to conduct
a buy-bust operation against the appellant. When they arrived there at around
12X30 p.m., the informant introduced PO1 Manalo to the appellant. PO1 Manalo
told the appellant that he wanted to buy ₱100.00 worth of shabu. The appellant
handed a sachet containing white crystalline substances to PO1 Manalo who, in
turn, gave him the marked money. Thereafter, the police brought the appellant
and the seized items to the police station.
ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution was able to comply with Sec. 21, Art. II. Of R.A. 9165
and with the chain of custody requirement of this Act
RULING:
No. A crucial step in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs
or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.
"Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of
his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the
starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be
immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the
markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the
marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from
the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end
of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or
contamination of evidence.
In the present case, the prosecutionʼs lone witness, PO1 Manalo, gave
conflicting statements as to who marked the seized sachets. In his direct
testimony, he claimed that it was the desk officer who marked the sachets. In
his cross- examination, PO1 Manalo stated that he was the one who marked the
confiscated plastic sachets with "RM."
We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the initial
markings as reference. If at the first instance or opportunity, there are already
doubts on who really placed the markings on the seized sachets (or if the
markings were made in accordance with the required procedure), serious
uncertainty hangs over the identification of the seized shabu that the
prosecution introduced into evidence.

In addition, the records do not show that the sachets were marked in the
presence of the appellant. The "marking" of the seized items to truly ensure that
they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered
in evidence should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2)
immediately upon confiscation.
The procedure under Sec. 21(1) of Art. II of R.A No. 9165 was also not complied
with as PO1 Manalo himself admitted that the police did not make an inventory
and photograph the seized items either at the place of seizure or at the police
station. In addition, the police did not offer any acceptable reason why they
failed to do a basic requirement like a physical inventory of the seized drugs,
considering that there were only three (3) sachets taken from the appellant. The
SC in a recent case has acquitted an accused for failure of the police to make an
inventory and to photograph the seized shabu as the strict compliance with the
prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique
characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to
tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise.
The totality of all the procedural lapses effectively produced serious doubts on
the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of
allegations of frame up and extortion. The SC has previously held that these
lapses negate the presumption that official duties have been regularly
performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole
performance and should make the presumption unavailable.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ENRICO MIRONDO Y IZON

G.R. No. 210841, October 14, 2015 MENDOZA, J.
FACTS:
At around 3X00 in the afternoon on May 21, 2006, SPO4 Melchor de la Peña
received information from his informant that a certain "Erik Manok" was selling
illegal drugs in his residence located at Gitna, Barangay Cuyab, San Pedro,
Laguna. Immediately, he relayed the information to the Chief of Police who
instructed him to undertake a surveillance of the area and if the information
given by the informant is true, to conduct a buy-bust operation to effect the
arrest of the supposed seller of the illegal drugs. SPO4 de la Peña called on the
three (3) police officers from the intelligence section of the police department to
act as back-up arresting officers of the raiding team, namely, PO1 Alejandro
Ame, SPO1 Arnel Gonzales and PO1 Jifford Signap. The latter was designated as
the poseurbuyer and was given P200.00 as marked money and the civilian
informant was assigned to act as the middle man to facilitate the buy-bust
operation. After the briefing, they all proceeded to Barangay Cuyab in San
Pedro, Laguna, and positioned themselves along the street adjacent to the
house of "Erik Manok."
PO1 Jifford and the informant proceeded to the house of "Erik Manok" who
turned out to be the appellant herein, while the rest of the raiding team stayed in
the service vehicle they parked along the street near the house of the alleged
seller to await the pre-arranged signal from the poseurbuyer to assist in the
arrest of the former. At the house of "Erik Manok," the informant introduced PO1
Jifford to the latter as the buyer. PO1 Jifford handed the P200.00 marked money
to the appellant who, in turn, handed to the former a plastic sachet containing
the suspected shabu. The sale transaction having been consummated, PO1
Jifford then made a missed call to SPO4 de la Peña, which was the pre-arranged
signal for the arresting team to converge in the house of the appellant and assist
in the arrest of the latter. PO1 Jifford introduced himself to the appellant as a
police officer and forthwith announced that he was arresting him for illegal sale
of shabu, a dangerous drug, in the presence of the informant and the other
members of the arresting team. He noted that the time then was around 5X30 in
the afternoon. He retrieved the P200.00 marked money from the appellant to
use as evidence together with the plastic sachet containing the suspected
illegal drugs which he marked with the initials "EM-B."
The arresting team brought appellant to the police station and turned him over
to the Investigator on duty for processing. They then prepared their Pre-
Operational Plan, the Certificate of Inventory as well as the official request for
chemical and laboratory examination of the suspected shabu they apprehended
from the appellant. Significantly, the examination conducted disclosed that the
white crystalline substance contained in the plastic sachet recovered from the
appellant tested positive for the presence of shabu.
Mirondo denied the charges against him, claiming that he was not arrested in a
buy-bust operation. On 21 May 2006 at around 2X00 o'clock in the afternoon,
Enrico Mirondo was at their house in Barangay Cuyab, San Pedro, Laguna,
watching television inside his room with his child Racel, when eight (8) armed
men destroyed their gate and forcibly entered their residence and immediately

handcuffed him. He asked them why he was being handcuffed but he was not
given any answer. He was not shown any warrant of arrest or search warrant
before the group searched his residence. The group, however, found nothing.
Afterwards, he was brought outside and boarded their vehicle. While inside the
vehicle, he was forced to admit that he was selling shabu but he refused. He
was then incarcerated at around 11X00 o'clock in the evening. On August 19,
2011, the RTC found Mirondo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. In its assailed August 28, 2013 Decision,
the CA affirmed the RTC judgment of conviction.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in griving credence to the
prosecutionʼs evidence.
2. Whether or not the accused is guilty despite the broken chain of custody of
the allegedly confiscated shabu.
3. Whether or not the accused is guilty despite non-compliance with Sec. 21 of
RA 9165.
RULINGS:
Settled is the rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole records of
the case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite
and appreciate errors that may be found in the appealed judgment whether they
are assigned or unassigned. Given the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal
case, an examination of the entire records of the case may be explored for the
purpose of arriving at a correct conclusion as the law and justice dictate.
After an assiduous review of the records of the case at bench, the Court finds
the appeal to be impressed with merit.
It is a well-established doctrine that the trial court's findings of fact are, as a
general rule, entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal,
especially when affirmed by the CA. This rule, however, admits of exceptions
and does not apply where facts of weight and substance with direct and
material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked,
misapprehended or misapplied. The case at bench falls under such exception
and, hence, a departure from the general rule is warranted.
For a successful prosecution of an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
the following essential elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale
took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence;
and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified. Implicit in all these is the need
for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as
evidence. The narcotic substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction.
Further, in People v. Gatlabayan, the Court held that it is of paramount
importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be established beyond
reasonable doubt; and that it must be proven with

certitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly
the same substance offered in evidence before the court. In fine, the illegal drug
must be produced before the court as exhibit and that which was exhibited must
be the very same substance recovered from the suspect.
In the case at bench, the Court finds that the second element is wanting. It
appears that the subject 0.03 gram of shabu allegedly confiscated from Mirondo
was never presented in evidence during the trial for identification by the
prosecution witnesses PO1 Signap and SPO4 de la Peña, albeit the same had
been formally offered by the prosecution. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to
prove the indispensable element of corpus delicti of the case.
Quoted at length are excerpts of testimonies of PO1 Signap and SPO4 de la
Peña: Public Prosecutor Ibana
Direct Examination ofPOl Signap:
Q: And after you arrested him, what happened next, Mr. Witness?
A: We brought him to our office, Ma'am.
Q: What did you do with the plastic?
A: I put some marking, Ma'am.
Q: Can you still recall what was the marking you put, Mr. Witness with the plastic
sachet? A: EM-B Ma'am, initial of Eric Mirondo.
Q: And what about that B, what does that stands for?
A: I cannot remember but it is reported in the blotter, Ma'am.
Q: And what was placed on the blotter Mr. Witness, if you still recall? A:Serial
Nos. of the money that we utilized, Ma'am.
Q: Mr. Witness, you mentioned in your statement and a while ago of two pieces
of P100.00 bill and in your statement Serial No. NB630077 and Serial No.
TB400315, can you tell us Mr. Witness where are the originals of the money you
utilized? A: We submitted them to the office, Ma'am.
Continuation of Direct Examination of PO1 Sianap:
Q: Mr. witness, the last time you testified on February 2, 2007, you stated that
you submitted the original of the two (2) pieces of the one hundred peso bills
(Php100.00) together with the documents of evidence of this case Mr. witness,
what did you do with the said money?
A: We have the photographs of the said money.
Q: I'm showing to you several photographs Mr. witness, depicting the accused
and the two (2) money bills, what is the relation of this photograph to the one
you just referred to?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And who is this person standing, fronting the money? A: Enrico Mirondo.
Q: I noticed a white thing beside the two money bills, can you please tell us what
was this white thing?
A: Suspected shabu ma'am.
Q: Your Honor, these photographs, were previously marked as Exhibit "I". I'm
also showing to you "I-1" and "I-2", what is the relation of these photographs
that you allegedly took?
A: That is the photograph of the same marked money.
Q: May we offer for stipulation Your Honor, the fact that the photograph of the
marked money attached to the record, likewise marked as Exhibit "D" and "D-1"
are the faithful reproduction of the original money bills inside the vault of this
Court?
Atty. Ilagan: Admitted Your Honor.
Q: You also mentioned the last time you testified Mr. witness that you marked
the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu, which was the subject of the
buy-bust operation, after you marked it, what did you do with the plastic sachet
containing suspected shabu, as you say?
A: We brought it to the crime laboratory.
Q: Do you have any proof Mr. Witness that you indeed brought the specimen to
the Crime Laboratory Office?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Did you come to know the result of the examination conducted in the Crime
Laboratory Office? A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What was the result?
A: Positive for shabu.
Q: On Exhibit "G" Your Honor may I request that the name of suspect Enrico
Mirondo be marked as our Exhibit "G-1" and the specimen submitted Your
Honor as "G-2" and the stamp marked RECEIVED by the Crime Laboratory
Office as "G-3". That is all Your Honor.
Court: Cross Atty. Ilagan?
Atty. Ilagan: We move for the deferment of cross Your Honor. Direct Examination
of SPO4 de la Peña:
Q: You also stated that the calling of Police Office Signap to your telephone
signifies that the buy-bust operation was positive, so what happened Mr.
witness to the subject of the buy-bust operation, if you know?
A: The illegal drug was brought to PNP crime laboratory for examination.
Q: Can you describe the subject of the buy-bust operation?
A: One small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white substance
ma'am.

Q: Before it was brought to the crime laboratory for examination, what was done
to it, if you know? A: I made a marking on the plastic sachet ma'am.
Q: What was the marking placed on the plastic sachet with white crystalline
substance?
A: With initial EM-B ma'am.
Q: Before the case was filed and before you brought the specimen to the Crime
Laboratory Office Mr. witness, what else did you do with them?
A: Photograph of the subject and evidences ma'am.
Q: If this photograph will be shown to you, will you be able to identify it Mr.
witness?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: I'm showing to you three (3) photographs marked as Exhibit "I", "I-1" and
"I-2", are these the same photographs taken during the investigation?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Who is this person in Exhibit "I"?
A: Enrico Mirondo.
Q: What about these money bills in front of him Exhibit "I", "I-1" and "I-2"?
A: These are the money which were utilized during the buy-bust operation.
Q: And beside this money bill Mr. witness is a white plastic sachet with white
thing, Exhibit "I," "I-1" and "I-2," what is this?
A: That is the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu ma'am.
Q: Did you come to know the result of the examination conducted by the Crime
Laboratory? A: Positive in Methamphetamine Hydrochloride ma'am.
Fiscal: Nothing further Your Honor.
Indeed, there was nothing in the records that would show that the shabu,
subject of Criminal Case No. 5819-SPL, was ever presented by the prosecution
before the trial court. Neither PO1 Signap nor SPO4 de la Peña was actually
confronted with the subject shabu for proper identification when they were
called to the witness stand. Also, the said prosecution witnesses were not given
an opportunity to testify as to the condition of the seized item in the interim that
the evidence was in their possession and control. Instead, the prosecution
endeavored to establish the existence and identity of the narcotic substance
supposedly seized from Mirondo through mere photographs depicting him
together with the subject shabu and the buy-bust money consisting of two (2)
one hundred peso bills. The photographs were marked as Exhibits "I", "I-1" and
"I-2." This flaw strongly militates against the prosecution's cause because it not
only casts doubt on the existence and identity of the subject shabu but likewise
tends to discredit, if not negate, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official
police operation. In People v. Remigio, the Court wrote:

In this case, no illegal drug was presented as evidence before the trial court. As
pointed out by appellant, what were presented were pictures of the supposedly
confiscated items. But, in the current course of drugs case decisions, a picture
is not worth a thousand words. The image without the thing even prevents the
telling of a story. It is indispensable for the prosecution to present the drug itself
in court.
Verily, the subject 0.03 gram of shabu in a plastic sachet was never adduced
before the court as evidence by the prosecution and was not one of those
marked as an exhibit during the pre-trial or even in the course of the trial proper.
The Court notes that in the pre-trial order of the RTC, dated October 30, 2006,
it was indicated therein that the "subject specimen was reserved for marking
during trial." Nowhere in the records, however, was it shown that the prosecution
made any effort to present the very corpus delicti of the drug offense during the
trial proper. Curiously, the plastic sachet containing the subject shabu was
formally offered by the prosecution as Exhibit "L-1-a" and was admitted by the
RTC per its Order, dated October 21, 2009, despite its non-presentation.
Obviously, this omission fatally flawed the decision of conviction.
It is lamentable that the RTC and even the CA overlooked the significance of the
absence of this glaring detail in the records of the case. Instead, the lower
courts focused their deliberations on the warrantless arrest of Mirondo in
arriving at their respective conclusions. In sustaining the prosecution's case, the
RTC and the CA inevitably relied on the evidentiary presumption that official
duties had been regularly performed. Let it be underscored that the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can be rebutted
by contrary proof, being a mere presumption, and more importantly, it is inferior
to, and could not prevail over, the constitutional presumption of innocence.
The failure to produce the corpus delicti in court could not be cured by the
following stipulation entered into by the prosecution and the defense during the
hearing when Forensic Chemical Officer Daisy Catibog Ebdane was called to
testify, to wit:
Fiscal Ibana - We are offering the testimony of the witness to prove that on May
22, 2006 while she was still assigned at the Regional Crime Laboratory Office,
CALABARZON, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City, their office received letter
request dated May 21, 2006 from the San Pedro Municipal Police Station
together with the specimen, a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu with
marking EM-B and on that basis she conducted an examination on the specimen
and she put into writing her findings and conclusion that the specimen
contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, she will identify the letter request
submitted for examination, Chemistry Report No. D-208-06 and the specimen
with methamphetamine hydrochloride placed in a plastic sachet with marking
EM-B Your Honor.
Court - Any comment to the offer? Atty. Ilagan - Subject to cross.

Fiscal Ibana - We offer for stipulation Your Honor, to abbreviate the proceedings,
the existence and due execution of letter examination request date May 21,
2006, that this letter was received by the Regional Crime Laboratory Office on
May 22, 2006 together with the specimen, the existence and due execution of
Chemistry Report No. D-208-06 and the existence of the Specimen stated in
the letter request as well as in the chemistry report Your Honor.
Court - Atty. Ilagan?
Atty. Ilagan - We admit the existence of the specimen submitted for
examination, the Chemistry Report as well as the request for laboratory
examination.
To begin with, it was not clearly and convincingly shown that what was
submitted for laboratory examination was the same shabu that was actually
recovered from Mirondo. Secondly, the defense made no stipulation that the
alleged confiscated substance contained in a plastic sachet was the same
substance that the forensic chemist examined and found positive for shabu.
There was no stipulation with respect to the ultimate source of the drug
submitted for examination by the forensic chemist. Thirdly, the forensic chemist
did not testify at all as to the identity of the person from whom she received the
specimen for examination. Lastly, the forensic chemist failed to testify in court
regarding the handling of the specimen in a plastic sachet in the forensic
laboratory and the analytical result of the qualitative examination. Considering
the vacuity of proof as to the existence and identity of the supposedly
confiscated shabu and the transfer of its custody from the apprehending officer
to the forensic chemist, as well as the limited matters stipulated upon by the
parties, the Court could not accord evidentiary value to the document that
merely states that the plastic sachet presented to the forensic chemist
contained prohibited drug.
Finally, the Court notes that there were nagging questions about the post-
examination custody that were left unanswered by the prosecution evidence,
particularly, as to who exercised custody and possession of the specimen after
the chemical examination and how it was handled, stored and safeguarded
pending its presentation as evidence in court. The failure of the prosecution to
provide details pertaining to the said post-examination custody of the seized
item created a gap in the chain of custody which again raised reasonable doubt
on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.
In light of the above disquisition, the Court finds no further need to discuss and
pass upon the merits of Mirondo's defense of denial and frame-up. Well-settled
is the rule in criminal law that the conviction of an accused must be based on
the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness or absence
of evidence of the defense. The accused has no burden to prove his innocence
and the weakness of the defense he interposed is inconsequential. He must be
acquitted and set free as the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of
innocence in his favor.
The disposition of this appeal once again emphasizes the need for trial courts to
be more circumspect and meticulous in scrutinizing the evidence for the
prosecution so as to make sure that the stringent standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt is met with due regard to relevant jurisprudence. This would,
after all, redound to the benefit of the criminal justice system by amply
protecting civil liberties and maintaining the respect and confidence of the
community in the

application of criminal law while at the same time, inculcating in the prosecutors
the need to properly discharge the onus probandi.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed August 28, 2013 Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05406, which affirmed the August
19, 2011 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93, in
Criminal Case No. 5819-SPL, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Conclusion: Therefore, the accused was not guilty and was acquitted.

People vs Pancho
G.R. No. 206910 Philippines vs
October 14, 2015
Facts:
Ponente: Perez, J Plaintiff: People of the
Accused: Juliet Pancho
Members of the Criminal Investigation and intelligence Bureau of Cebu City
conducted a search in the house of accused-appellant and her husband Samuel
Pancho located in Sistio Plastikan, Barangay Duljo-Fatima, Cebu City. Police
Superintendent Pablo Labra served the search warrant on accused appellant.
Thereafter PO1 Veloso, designated as the searcher, PO1 Ilagan, designated as
the recorder and three barangay tanods, as witnesses proceeded with the
search. The search yielded three big plastic packets of suspected shabu
weighing a total of 14.49 grams, which were recovered under a jewelry box
placed on top of a cabinet divider. PO1 Velasco handed the packets of shabu to
PO2 Ilagan who recorded them in the confiscation receipt and made markings
on the plastic packets. PO1 Veloso accompanied PO2 Ilagan in handing over the
seized articles and the letter request to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory. The PNP Crime Lab later issued Chemistry Report No. D-
1381-2005 confirming that the three heat sealed transparent plastic bags,
weighing a total of 14.49 grams, were tested positive for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
On September 22, 2005 an information was filed against the accused for
possession of illegal drugs (Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165. After the
prosecution and the defense presented their respective evidences, the Trial
Court convicted the accused for the crime charged. A notice of appeal was sent
to the Court of Appeals, which later on affirmed the decision of the Trial Court
with slight modification with respect to the fine (reduced to P500,000).
On appeal, the accused argued the inconsistencies with respect to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. One of the officers who conducted
the search testified that they first searched the second floor of the house, while
the other officer testified that they first searched the first floor of the house. The
accused further argued that the barangay tanods should have been made to
testify to corroborate the testimonies of the police officers relative to the
search, Furthermore the requisites under section 21, paragraph 1, Article 21 of
RA no. 9165 were not complied with. Lastly, for failing to immediately surrender
the seized items before the Court who issued the search warrant pursuant to
Section 12 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.
Issue: Whether or not the accused-appellantʼs guilt has been proven beyond
reasonable doubt
Held: Yes, the arguments of the accused lacks merit. With respect to the first
assignment of error, the Court ruled that such inconsistencies are trivial in
nature. In the case of Valleno vs People, the Court enumerated the requisites in
order for prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, to
wit: 1. The accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a
prohibited drug, 2. Such possession is not authorized by law, and 3. The
accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. In
this case all of the elements are present. While it is true that the drugs were not
found on accused appellantʼs person, nonetheless the accused was deemed to
have in constructive possession of the packets of shabu because they were
under her control and management.

With respect to the second assignment of error, while it is true that the above
stated law requires that such articles seized be first photographed in the
presence of the media and DOJ, which were not followed in this case,
nonetheless the Implementing Rules of RA 9165 offers some flexibility in cases
of justifiable causes in cases of noncompliance. The only requirement is to
properly preserve the integrity of the seized items which the Court found to be
in order. Lastly with respect to the last assignment of error, the Court ruled that
the failure of the raiding team to deliver the seized items to the judge who
issued the warrant becomes immaterial because records show that the chain of
custody is intact.

THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 215731, September 02, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROLANDO CARRERA
Y IMBAT, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
Before us is an appeal1 from the June 10, 2014 Decision2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05885 modifying the November 27, 2012
Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 127, Caloocan City, finding
appellant Rolando Carrera guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 5,4 Article II, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 91655 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

After a buy-bust operation conducted on July 14, 2009, an Information for

violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was filed against appellant
reading:ChanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

That on or about the 14th day of July, 2009 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell and deliver to [IO1] JOSEPH L SAMSON, who posed as buyer,
METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 4.5722 grams,
4.1451 grams, 4.2055 grams, 3.8220 grams, 3.4999 grams, 4.5061 grams &
4.7124 grams, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding license or
prescription therefore, knowing the same to be such.
Contrary to Law.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.7 Trial on the merits ensued after
pre-trial.
In its November 27, 2012 Decision, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC
ruled:ChanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring

[appellant] Rolando Carrera y Imbat for Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, R.A. 9165
guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand
(P500,000.00) Pesos, as provided for by law.

The drugs subject matter of this case are hereby confiscated in favor of the
government to be dealt with in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.12

On appeal, the CA in its June 10, 2014 Decision found appellant guilty of illegal
possession of prohibited drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It
ruled:ChanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The November 27, 2012 Decision of

Caloocan City Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, in Criminal Case No. C-81635,
finding [appellant] Rolando Carrera y Imbat guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 is hereby
MODIFIED in that this Court instead finds [appellant] GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal possession of prohibited drugs penalized under
Section 11, Art. II of [R.A. No.] 9165. Accordingly, [appellant] is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to PAY A FINE OF FOUR
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).

All other aspects of the assailed decision are maintained.

SO ORDERED.13
APPELLANT IS GUILTY OF ILLEGAL
DELIVERY OF A PROHIBITED DRUG
We agree with the CA that appellant may not be held guilty of illegal sale of a
prohibited drug. In order to establish the crime of illegal sale of shabu, the
prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale; and
(b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing.28 It is thus
imperative that proof of the transaction or sale be established together with
the presentation of the corpus delicti in court.

Here, IO1 Samson, as the poseur-buyer, admitted that while he was in

possession of the marked money he failed to effect payment even after the
seller delivered the item to him. There being no payment, no sale was ever
consummated between the parties. There being no consummated sale,
appellant cannot be found guilty of illegal sale.

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

It must be emphasized that appellants were charged with selling, trading,

delivering, giving away, dispatching in transit and transporting dangerous
drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The charge was not
limited to selling. Said section punishes not only the sale but also the mere act
of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer
has been accepted by the seller. In the distribution of prohibited drugs, the
payment of any consideration is immaterial. The mere act of distributing the
prohibited drugs to others is in itself a punishable offense. x x x29

As we noted, appellant was charged with illegal sale and delivery of a

prohibited drug under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Appellant thus
based on the information and the evidence presented may be found liable of
illegal delivery of prohibited drugs.

In People v. Maongco,30 we stated that a person may be convicted of illegal

delivery of dangerous drugs if it is proven that (1) the accused passed on
possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by
any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
knowingly made the delivery with or without consideration. In this case, we
convicted a person charged with illegal sale of shabu of illegal delivery of
shabu for non-payment by the poseur-buyer.

Likewise, in People v. Reyes,31 we convicted a person of illegal delivery of

shabu instead of illegal sale of a prohibited drug because the prosecution did
not establish payment - an essential element of the crime of illegal sale of a
prohibited drug.

In the present case, the prosecution established that appellant based on a

prior arrangement knowingly passed the shabu to IO1 Samson. Being a tricycle
driver, appellant was without authority to hold and deliver the drug. Thus,
appellant is guilty of illegal delivery of shabu.

Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a tine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon
any person who shall be found guilty of illegal delivery of a prohibited drug.
32cralawrednad

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Appellant

ROLANDO CARRERA y IMBAT is hereby found GUILTY of Illegal Delivery of
Prohibited Drugs as defined under Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165.
He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a
fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).

With costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

People v Rodolfo Bocadi and Alberto Baticolon

Facts
4X30 in the afternoon (Special Investigator) Arnaldo Fineza and Miguel Dungog
of the NBI received info from an informant that there would be an open-sale of
Shabu in Barangay Looc and a team was formed after verifying information and
Fineza posed as the buyer to handle the marked money while PDEA was
informed of the matter. Fineza along with two informants were met by four men
as they reached the locus criminis in Barangay Looc and two of them were
identified as Baticolon. Bocadi later on, allegedly, offered them shabu. Thus the
transaction went on and the marked money was paid.
The group immediately arrested Bocadi and during this time the other suspects,
including Baticolon, were prompted to scatter and escape. SI Fineza and one of
the informants pursued and caught up with Baticolon who ran inside a nearby
house. Baticolon was apprehended and dragged back to the locus criminis. SI
Fineza informed the accused of the nature of their arrest and of their
constitutional rights. SI Fineza then pre- marked the sachet of suspected shabu.
SI Fineza then physically searched Bocadi and discovered from him another
sachet of suspected shabu. This was also pre- marked by SI Fineza. SI Fineza
also recovered the marked money from Baticolon after a search was made on
the latter's person.
Subsequently, the suspects, as well as the seized and recovered items, were
brought to the NBI Office where these were photographed and inventoried. The
inventory was prepared, signed and witnessed by SkyCable media man Juancho
Gallarde, Barangay Looc Kagawad Rogelio Talavera, Agent Dungog and PDEA
representative SPO1 Manuel Sanchez.
The seized items were then brought to the Negros Oriental PNP Provincial Crime
Laboratory for laboratory examination. Tests results revealed that the contents
of the two confiscated sachets yielded positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or more commonly known as shabu. The urine samples from the
two accused also confirmed the presence of shabu.
Version of the Defense
Both accused denied the allegations against them. Alleging that Baticolon was
merely resting in his house when he heard someone call out his name. When
Baticolon responded, a man by the name of Walter Adarna (Walter) barged
inside his house and yanked him out. Walter is allegedly a known police asset
with whom Baticolon had a previous altercation. While outside, Walter punched
Baticolon on the stomach and told the latter that he can finally exact his
revenge. Thereafter, Walter bodily searched Baticolon and took his wallet.
Baticolon was thereafter handcuffed and brought to the NBI office together with
co- accused Bocadi. Baticolon testified that Bocadi came into the picture only
when the latter was asked by Walter to pinpoint his house. Baticolon's version
was corroborated by defense witness May-May Artus, a neighbor of Baticolon
who allegedly saw the entire incident.
LOWER COURT DECISIONS
RTC: [GUILTY; FINE 500K; LIFE IMPRISONMENT; Basis: Illegal Sale of Shabu (for
both); Bocadi was also found guilty of illegal possession;
The trial court held that the elements of illegal sale of drugs were clearly
established through the evidence presented by the prosecution. It ruled that the
prosecution was able to prove the fact that both accused were caught in
flagrante delicto in a valid buy-bust operation. It noted that the defense of denial
offered by the accused cannot overturn the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties accorded to the apprehending officers. A
conspiracy was also found.
CA: Affirmed decision in toto.
Issue:
1. Whether the trial courts erred in upholding the existence and validity of the
buy bust operation conducted by the NBI?
2. Whether the trial courts erred in ruling that conspiracy to sell illegal drugs
was established by the prosecution?
3. Whether the trial courts erred in convicting Baticolon of the crime charged
despite the fact that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt?
Held:
1. NO. BUY BUST WAS VALID. In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the prosecution is able to establish the
following essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti
as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt
by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust
transaction.
The evidence for the prosecution clearly established all these elements. The
prosecution proved that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted with SI
Fineza as the buyer and Baticolon, in connivance with Bocadi, as the sellers of
the shabu. Likewise, the prosecution presented in evidence the plastic sachet
containing shabu as the object of the sale and proved that P300.00 was
received as consideration thereof. Finally, the delivery of the shabu sold and its
payment were clearly testified to by the prosecution witnesses.
2. NO. THERE IS CONSPIRACY. It was clearly established by the Direct
Examination conducted to the person of the herein defendants.
3. NO. THE UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY WAS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH
THIS. We have 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
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 29 May 2009 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00709 AFFIRMING the Joint
Judgment of the Regional Trial Court finding Rodolfo Bocadi y Apatan and
Alberto, Baticolon y Ramirez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of selling shabu
in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as
the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," sentencing them to each
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering them to each pay a fine of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) is hereby AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. 198314               September 24, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RICHARD GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal filed by herein accused Richard Guinto y San Andres (Guinto)
from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 31 January 2011,
affirming the decision of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Pasig City for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.2
The Facts
The prosecution presented a buy-bust case.
As narrated by Police Officer 1 Melvin Jesus S. Mendoza (PO1 Mendoza), the
operation was conducted on 20 January 2004 at around 1X00 oʼclock in the
morning by the members of Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Task Force (AIDSTF),
Pasig City Police Station. It was prompted by an information given by a female
caller received by AIDSTFʼs Team Supervisor Senior Police Officer 3 Leneal
Matias (SPO3 Matias), who in turn, coordinated with Police Inspector Melbert
Esguerra (P/Insp. Esguerra), the head of AIDSTF. According to the female caller,
a certain "Chard" was selling shabu in a place located at 137 MC Guinto,
Barangay Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. Based on the information, P/Insp. Esguerra
instructed the team to verify the call from their civilian informant residing also in
Barangay Pinagbuhatan. Upon positive verification, P/Insp. Esguerra formed a
buybust team composed of SPO3 Matias, SPO2 Braulio Basco (SPO2 Basco),
PO1 Michael Familara (PO1 Familara), PO1 Alan Mapula, and PO1 Porferio
Bansuelo (PO1 Bansuelo) and designated PO1 Mendoza to act as the poseur-
buyer. In turn, SPO3 Matias prepared the pre-operation report and coordinated
with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on the buy-bust
operation. PO1 Mendoza, as the poseur-buyer, was given two (2) pieces of
marked ₱100.00 bills as buy-bust money by P/Insp. Esguerra.3
After the briefing, the team including the informant proceeded to the target area
at around eleven oʼclock in the evening of 19 April 2004. Upon arrival, PO1
Mendoza and the informant positioned themselves outside the house of this
certain "Chard" (later identified as the accused Richard S.A. Guinto) and waited
for him to step out. Meanwhile, the rest of the team stood nearby and waited for
PO1 Mendozaʼs pre-arranged signal of raising of hand to indicate that the sale
transaction was already consummated. After two hours, Guinto finally went out
of the house. The informant approached Chard and introduced PO1 Mendoza as
a person in need of illegal drugs worth ₱200.00. PO1 Mendoza then gave buy-
bust money to Guinto as payment. Guinto, in turn, drew two (2) plastic sachets
containing shabu and gave them to PO1 Mendoza. Guinto then put the money
on his left pocket. To indicate consummation of illegal sale, PO1 Mendoza made
the prearranged signal to the other members of the team and introduced
himself to Guinto as a police officer. The other members of the team responded
and arrested Guinto. Immediately, PO1 Mendoza confiscated the marked money
from the left pocket of Guinto and marked the plastic sachet containing shabu
with the markings "RSG/MJM."4
Afterwards, the buy-bust team brought Guinto to Pasig City Police Station and
turned him over to SPO2 Basco for investigation. PO1 Mendoza turned over the
confiscated drugs toSPO2 Basco. Consequently, SPO2 Basco asked for a
laboratory examination request to determine the chemical composition of the
confiscated drugs.5 Thereafter, confiscated drug was brought by PO1 Noble to
the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination.6
The prosecution also presented PO1 Familara as its second witness to
corroborate the statements given by PO1 Mendoza. However, several
inconsistencies were apparent in his testimony.
When asked during his direct examination on who gave the buy-bust money to
PO1 Mendoza, PO1 Familara answered that it was SPO3 Matias.7 Likewise, the
pre-arranged signal was differently described as scratching of the nape instead
of raising of hand.8 He also testified that their asset arrived at around one
oʼclock in the morning to accompany them to Pinagbuhatan.9 Another
inconsistency which surfaced was when PO1 Familara testified that upon the
consummation of illegal sale, he went to the place of the arrest and saw PO1
Mendoza arresting Guinto. PO1 Mendoza then positively identified Guinto as the
one who sold one (1) plastic sachet of illegal drug instead of two (2) sachets.10
Finally, the last witness presented by the prosecution was Police Officer 2
Richard Noble (PO2 Noble).11 He corroborated the statements given by his
fellow police officers but again, presented an inconsistency as to the time of the
assetʼs arrival compared to the one narrated by PO1 Familara. A conflict came
out as to the time of the teamʼs arrival to the target area and as to how long they
waited for the accused to go out. In his direct, he testified that the asset arrived
at the police station before eleven oʼclock in the evening prior to the buy-bust
operation.12 Afterwards, they had a briefing on the operation. He recalled that
they waited for around 15 to 20 minutes before the accused came out13 while
PO1 Mendoza testified that they waited for the accused for two hours. When
asked again by the Court on the time of their arrival, he answered that it was at
around one oʼclock in the morning.14

The trial court on 8 October 2008 rendered a Decision20 finding Guinto guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged.

After a careful review of the evidence, we reverse the finding of the trial courts.
We find that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus delicti.
This is fatal in establishing illegal sale. Moreover, the conflicting statements of
the policemen on material points tarnished the credibility of the testimony for
the prosecution.
Primarily assailed by the accused are the inconsistent statements of the
apprehending police officers with respect to the circumstances of his illegal
arrest and the broken chain of custody which would warrant his acquittal.
We are convinced.
In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale and the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.23 Hence, to establish a
concrete case, it is an utmost importance to prove the identity of the narcotic
substance itself as it constitutes the very corpus delictiof the offense and the
fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore
imperative for the prosecution to first establish beyond reasonable doubt the
identity of the dangerous drug before asserting other arguments.

CRIMPRO
RULE 120
 Title
PEOPLE V. PUNZALAN
GR No. 199087
Date: November 11, 2015
Ponente: VILLARAMA, JR., J.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES – Plaintiff-Appellee
JERRY PUNZALAN and PATRICIA PUNZALAN – Accused-Appellants
Nature of the case: Accused-appellants Jerry Punzalan and Patricia Punzalan
seek the reversal of the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated October
28, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04557 which affirmed the Joint Decision dated
March 29, 2010 and the Order dated June 21, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 116 in Crim. Case No. R-PSY-09-01162-CR
convicting them of violation of Section 11, Article II of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. No. 9165).
FACTS
The prosecution established that on November 3, 2009, at around 4X30 in the
morning, Intelligence Agent 1 Liwanag Sandaan (IA1 Sandaan) and her team
implemented a search warrant issued on October 28, 2009 by then Manila RTC
Judge Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. to: (i) make an immediate search of the premises/
house of accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, Vima Punzalan, Jaime
Punzalan, Arlene Punzalan-Razon and Felix Razon who are all residents of 704
Apelo Cruz Compound, Barangay 175, Malibay, Pasay City; and (ii) to seize and
take possession of an undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs,
including the proceeds or fruits and bring said property to the court.
Since there are three houses or structures inside the compound believed to be
occupied by the accused-appellants, a sketch of the compound describing the
house to be searched was prepared and attached to the search warrant.
Before proceeding to the target area, they passed by the barangay hall to
coordinate with Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Flores, Kagawad Larry Fabella and
Kagawad Edwin Razon. The team likewise brought with them a media
representative affiliated with "Sunshine Radio" to cover the operation. From the
barangay hall, they walked toward the target place using as a guide the sketch
they prepared.
When they were already outside the house of Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, which
is a three-storey structure, IA1 Sandaan knocked on the door. A woman, later
identified as accused-appellant Patricia Punzalan, slightly opened the door.
When they introduced themselves as PDEA agents and informed the occupant
that they have a search warrant, Patricia immediately tried to close the door but
was not successful since the PDEA agents pushed the door open. The team was
able to enter the house of Jerry and Patricia Punzalan who were both surprised
when found inside the house. IO1 Pagaragan showed and read the search
warrant in front of accused-appellants.
Inside the house, the team immediately saw plastic sachets placed on top of the
table. Intelligence Officer 1 Pagaragan (IO1 Pagaragan) was able to seize 9 heat-
sealed plastic sachets, 2 square-shaped transparent plastic containers and a
small round plastic container. All 3 plastic containers contained smaller heat-
sealed plastic sachets of white crystalline substance of suspected shabu. There
were also other paraphernalia, guns, money and a digital weighing scale.
Accordingly, Special Investigator 2 Esteban (SI2 Esteban) and Intelligence
Officer 2 Alvarado (IO2 Alvarado) effected the arrest of accused-appellants
Jerry and Patricia Punzalan after informing them of their constitutional rights.
IO1 Pagaragan immediately marked the seized items by placing the marking
"ADP". After searching and marking the evidence found on the first floor, the
team, together with the barangay officials and accused-appellants, proceeded
to, and conducted the search on the second and third floors but found nothing.
They went downstairs where they conducted the inventory of recovered items.
IO1 Pagaragan prepared the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized and a
Certification of Orderly Search which were later signed by the barangay officials.
After their arrest, accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan were brought
to the PDEA Office in Quezon City for investigation. IO1 Pagaragan presented
the seized evidence to Atty. Benjamin Gaspe, who prepared the Booking Sheet
and Arrest Report, Request for Drug Test/Physical and

Medical Examination. Laboratory examination of the seized pieces of drug

evidence gave positive results for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug.
Thereafter, the accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for illegal possession of 40.78 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a dangerous drug.
On March 29, 2010, the trial court convicted accused-appellants for violation of
Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165. The trial court held that the issuance of a
search warrant against the premises of different persons named therein is valid
as there is no requirement that only one search warrant for one premise to be
searched is necessary for its validity. Also, the address of the accused-
appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan was clearly and adequately described. A
sketch that specifically identifies the places to be searched was attached to the
records and such description of the place was unquestionably accurate that the
PDEA agents were led to, and were able to successfully conduct their operation
in the premises described in the search warrant.
In its findings, the trial court observed that there were actually two phases of the
search done in the Punzalan house. The first or initial search was done at the
ground floor of the house, immediately after the PDEA agents gained entry and
was beyond doubt made in the presence of both accused. This is where the
bulk of illegal drugs were found, confiscated and consequently marked. It is of
no moment that the barangay officials were not able to witness the said initial
search and their failure to arrive on time to witness the first or initial search at
the ground floor of the Punzalan house, or even their total absence thereat, will
not render the subject search invalid and unlawful inasmuch as their presence is
not required.
The second phase of the search was conducted at the upper floors of the house
after the markings on the 293 sachets of confiscated specimens were
completed by 101 Pagaragan. This was witnessed and participated in by the
barangay officials. Finally, after the search of the entire house was concluded, it
is not disputed that an inventory of all the items seized was conducted by IO1
Pagaragan in compliance with the provisions of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
9165.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants. The CA held
that there was a valid search and seizure conducted and the seized items are
admissible in evidence. The prosecution was able to prove all the elements of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (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.
ISSUE/S
– YES.
2. Whether or not the chain of custody rule has been complied with – YES.
1. Whether or not the search conducted was valid
RATIO
I. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two
witnesses. - No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made
except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his
family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality.
As correctly ruled by the CA, even if the barangay officials were not present
during the initial search, the search was witnessed by accused-appellants
themselves, hence, the search was valid since the rule that "two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality" must be present
applies only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any
member of his family.
To successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following elements must be established: (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. In the case at bench,
the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty the guilt of the
accused-appellants for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Accused-appellants were caught in actual possession of the prohibited drugs
during a valid search of their house. It bears stressing that aside from assailing
the validity of the search, accused-appellants did not deny ownership of the
illegal drugs seized. They have not proffered any valid defense in the offense
charged for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
II. This Court has time and again adopted the chain of custody rule, a method of
authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question
is what the proponent claims it to be. This would include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was
received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there
had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated
or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as
exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead
to a finding of guilt. In this case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs
was duly established from the time the heat-sealed plastic sachets were seized
and marked by IO1 Pagaragan to its subsequent turnover to Atty. Gaspe of the
PDEA Office in Quezon City. IO1 Pagaragan was also the one who personally
delivered and submitted the specimens composed of 293 sachets of shabu to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. The specimens were kept
in custody until they were presented as evidence before the trial court and
positively identified by IO1 Pagaragan as the very same specimens he marked
during the inventory.
The fact that the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was not signed by Atty.
Gaspe does not undermine the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal
drugs seized from accused-appellants. The failure to strictly comply with the
prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does not render an
arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in
the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
RULING
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The
Decision dated October 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No.
04557 is hereby AFFIRMED.
2-S 2016-17 (ELMIDO)
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015novemberdecisions.php?id=1019

G.R. No. 212940, September 16, 2015

CHRISTOPHER DELA RIVA Y HORARIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
Challenged in this petition for review is the February 13, 2014 Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05895, which affirmed the
August 30, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75, Olongapo
City (RTC), finding the petitioner, accused Christopher Dela Riva y Horario
(Dela Riva), guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

On April 29, 2009, an Information was filed charging accused with violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the Information
reads:
That on or about the 28th day of April 2009, at about 6X00 in the morning, in
Brgy. Calapacuan, Municipality of Subic, Province of Zambales, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously without any lawful authority, give
away, deliver and sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet weighing
1.3095 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, known as 'shabu,' a
dangerous drug, to a poseur-buyer for One Thousand (Php1, 000.00) Pesos
marked money.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3
On June 3, 2009, Dela Riva was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged
● THERE WAS A MISAPPRECIATION OF FACTS, WHICH IF CONSIDERED,
WOULD OVERTURN THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COURT OF
APPEALS.
●

● THERE WAS FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY OF

THE DRUGS ALLEGEDLY SEIZED FROM ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
●

● THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE

GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.25
Chain of Custody Broken

In the case at bench, the prosecution breached the first link right away when
the buy-bust team failed to immediately mark the seized drugs, conduct a
physical inventory and photograph the same after the arrest of the accused and
the confiscation of the seized drugs. The law requires that the marking, physical
inventory and photograph be conducted at the nearest police station or at
the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. Additionally, the law requires that
the said procedure must be done in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/
her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Surprisingly, the PDEA agents in this case failed to observe the proper
procedures.

G.R. No. 206593, November 10, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAMONITO B.
ASIGNAR, Accused-Appellant.
RESOLUTION
PEREZ, J.:
This resolves accused-appellant Ramonito B. Asignar's appeal from the 31
March 2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. HC No.
00966 affirming his conviction beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Sections 5 (Criminal Case No. CBU 70735), 11 CBU 70733), and 12 (Criminal
Case No. CBU 70734), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

By way of background, separate informations were filed against accused-

appellant before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 13, as
follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

For violation of Sec. 5,2 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU
70735):chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

That on August 24, 2004, at about 6X45 a.m. in the City of Cebu, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with
deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then and there sell,
deliver or give away to a poseur buyer the following: one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic packet of 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance placed
in a plastic pack locally knowns as "shabu" containing Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.cralawlawlibrary

For violation of Sec. II,3 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU
70733):chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

That on or about the 24th day of August, 2004, at 6X45 a.m. in the City of
Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did then
and there have in possession and under his control the following: three (3)
transparent plastic packets containing traces of white crystalline substance
locally knowns as "shabu", containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.cralawlawlibrary

For violation of Sec. 12,4 Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 (Crim. Case No. CBU
70734):chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

That on or about the 24th day of August, 2004, at about 6X45 a.m. in the City
of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, with deliberate intent and without being authorized by law, did
then and there have in possession and under his control the following: two (2)
disposable lighters used as an improvised burner one plastic paraphernalia for
repacking shabu which are instruments and/or equipments fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting or introducing any dangerous
drug into the body.cralawlawlibrar
For illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution
mustestablish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an
item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is
not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed
the drug. All the elements were established in this case. Incident to his lawful
arrest, when he was frisked three (3) plastic packets containing traces of white
crystalline substance, later on found to be traces of a dangerous drug, was
taken from his possession.  In a number of cases, it has been declared that mere
possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a
satisfactory explanation of such possession - the onus probandi is shifted to
the accused, of knowledge or animus possidendi. Mere possession of the
prohibited substance and the burden of proof is upon accused-appellant to
show that he has a license or permit under law to possess the prohibited drug.
The accused-appellant failed to explain his possession of the prohibited drug.
Accused-appellant was misled in his belief that the burden to prove the lack of
license or permit to possess the prohibited drug lies with the prosecution.

G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO
AND GARY YUMOL Y TUAZON,*Appellants.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 26 June 2012 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04916, affirming the Decision2 dated 14
February 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Baguio City (trial court) in
Criminal Case No. 30409-R.
The Facts

Appellants Regie Breis y Alvarado (Breis) and Gary Yumol y Tuazon (Yumol)
were charged with violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165)
as follows:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

That in the afternoon of February 10, 2010, at Gov. Pack Road, this City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, in conspiracy with each other, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously have in their possession, custody and control
marijuana with a recorded net weight of 8,181 grams of dried marijuana leaves/
fruiting tops wrapped in plastic and further wrapped with brown packaging
tape and placed inside a brown box, without the authority of law and knowing
fully well that said dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops are dangerous drugs, in
violation of the afore-cited provisions of law.

CONTRARY TO LAW to Sec. 11 of RA 9165.3

Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued, where the
prosecution presented witnesses Intelligence Officers 1 Elizer Mangili (IO1
Mangili) and Ryan Peralta (IO1 Peralta) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency - Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR); while the defense
presented the testimonies of appellants
Appellants argue that the procedure on seizure and custody of drugs, specified
in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165, was not complied with. In
support of this contention, appellants state that: (1) the PDEA agents did not
immediately conduct the inventory at the place where the items were seized,
and did so only at the PDEA-CAR field office;12 and (2) the representatives from
the media, barangay and Department of Justice (DOJ) were present during the
inventory conducted at the field office, but not at the place of the seizure during
actual confiscation.13redarclaw

Appellants are mistaken. The PDEA agents who apprehended appellants did not
deviate from the procedure prescribed by law and regulations. Section 21,
paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the
seizure and custody of dangerous drugs:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.

This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and

Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which reads:LawlibraryofCRAlaw

(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: 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, 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; x x x. (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)

Appellants insist that the PDEA agents should have conducted the inventory at
the place where the drugs were seized. However, the IRR clearly provides that in
case of warrantless seizures, the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending team. The physical inventory and photograph were conducted at
the PDEA-CAR field office, a fact that appellants themselves acknowledge14
and testified to by IO1 Mangili15 and IO1 Peralta.16redarclaw

The requirement of the presence of a representative from the media and the
DOJ, and any elected public official during the physical inventory and
photograph was also complied with. The representatives from the media and the
DOJ and an elected barangay official were present at the inventory conducted
at the PDEA-CAR field office, as evidenced by their signatures17 on the
Inventory of Seized Item18 and photographs taken during the inventory.19 In
fact, this is not contested by appellants.20redarclaw

Hence, we find no deviation from the procedure prescribed by Section 21,

paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR.

G.R. No. 200748               July 23, 2014

JAIME D. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
SERENO, CJ:
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari, filed by petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz,
from the Decision1 dated 22 June 2011 issued by the Twentieth Division of the
Court of Appeals (CA) and Resolution2 dated 2 February 2012 issued by the
Former Twentieth Division of the CA in CA-G.R. C.R. No. 00670.
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS
Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II
of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Office of the
Ombudsman - Visayas, in an Information3 dated 14 February 2006, which
reads:
That on or about the 31st day of January 2006, at Cebu City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, JAIME
D. DE LA CRUZ, a public officer, having been duly appointed and qualified to
such public position as Police Officer 2 of the Philippine National Police (PNP)
assigned in the Security Service Group of the Cebu City Police Office, after
having beenarrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in
an entrapment operation, was found positive for use of METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDEcommonly known as "Shabu", the dangerous drug after a
confirmatory test conducted on said accused.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, petitioner, assisted by counsel de parte, pleaded not guilty to
the charge. The records do not reveal whether De la Cruz was likewise charged
for extortion.

THE ISSUE
We deem it proper to give due course to this Petition by confronting head-on
the issue of whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal.
OUR RULING
We declare that the drug testconducted upon petitioner is not grounded upon
any existing law or jurisprudence.
We gloss over petitionerʼs non-compliance with the Resolution7 ordering him to
submit clearly legible duplicate originals or certified true copies of the assailed
Decision and Resolution. Petitioner was charged with use of dangerous drugs in
violation of the law, the pertinent provision of which reads:
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A person apprehended or arrested, who
is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test,
shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a
government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII
of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/
she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one
(1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos
(₱50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000.00): Provided,That
this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to
have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for
under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall
apply.8

The drug test was a violation of petitionerʼs right to privacy and right against
self-incrimination.
It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and
tested for drugs. He also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He was
adamant in exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved futile, because he
was still compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under those
circumstances.

G.R. No. 231989, September 04, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMY LIM Y
MIRANDA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
On appeal is the February 23, 2017 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01280-MIN, which affirmed the September 24, 2013
Decision2  of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City, in
Criminal Case Nos. 2010-1073 and 2010-1074, finding accused-appellant
Romy Lim y Miranda (Lim) guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of
Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.

In an Information dated October 21, 2010, Lim was charged with illegal
possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), committed as
follows:
That on or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10X00 o'clock in the
evening, at Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law
to possess or use any dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully,
criminally and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine
hydrochloride, locally known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total weight
of 0.02 gram, accused well-knowing that the substance recovered from his
possession is a dangerous drug.

Contrary to, and in violation of, Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.3
On even date, Lim, together with his stepson, Eldie Gorres y Nave (Gorres),
was also indicted for illegal sale of shabu, committed as follows:
That on or about October 19, 2010, at more or less 10X00 o'clock in the
evening, at Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating
together and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law to
sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly sell and/or offer for sale, and give
away to a PDEA Agent acting as poseur-buyer One (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as
Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.02 gram, accused knowing
the same to be a dangerous drug, in consideration of Five Hundred Pesos
(Php500.00) consisting of one piece five hundred peso bill, with Serial No.
FZ386932, which was previously marked and recorded for the purpose of the
buy-bust operation.

Contrary to Section 5, Paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.4

In their arraignment, Lim and Gorres pleaded not guilty.5 They were detained
in the city jail during the joint trial of the cases.6
The prosecution presented Intelligence Officer (IO) 1 Albert Orellan, IO1 Nestle
Carin, IO2 Vincent Orcales, and Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Charity Caceres.
Aside from both accused, Rubenia Gorres testified for the defense.
The judgment of conviction is reversed and set aside, and Lim should be
acquitted based on reasonable doubt.

At the time of the commission of the crimes, the law applicable is R.A. No.
9165.10  Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of
2002, which implements the law, defines chain of custody as-
the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such
record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date
and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping
and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.11 
The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence
must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence.12  To establish a
chain of custody sufficient to make evidence admissible, the proponent needs
only to prove a rational basis from which to conclude that the evidence is what
the party claims it to be.13  In other words, in a criminal case, the prosecution
must offer sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably
believe that an item still is what the government claims it to be.14  Specifically
in the prosecution of illegal drugs, the well-established federal evidentiary rule
in the United States is that when the evidence is not readily identifiable and is
susceptible to alteration by tampering or contamination, courts require a more
stringent foundation entailing a chain of custody of the item with sufficient
completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been
exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.15 This was
adopted in Mallillin v. People,16 where this Court also discussed how, ideally,
the chain of custody of seized items should be established:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that
the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to
the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.17
Thus, the links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized illegal drug
by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the
illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the
forensic chemist to the court.