Criminal Law; Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs; Corpus Delicti

Evidence

Question: A was indicted for the sale and illegal possession of shabu in Zamboanga.
B, who is a police officer, in an entrapment operation frisked accused-appellant and
recovered from the latter the marked money and 16 sachets of shabu inside a
cigarette pack. The marking of the seized drugs was not promptly conducted at or
near the place of arrest and seizure and without photograph of the evidence in the
crime scene. No barangay officials witnessed the arrest. The buy-bust team brought
accused-appellant to the police station then marked the 16 sachets.

A denies charges against him and insists he was illegally arrested without a warrant.
According to him, he and his wife were resting at his rented house when armed men
in civilian clothing suddenly entered and searched his house and found nothing.
Despite protest, he was brought to the police station and claimed he did not know
why he was detained.

The RTC gave more credence to the version of the prosecution and accorded the
police officers, who were witnesses, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their official duties. On appeal to the CA, accused-appellant harped
on the prosecution's failure to discharge their burden of proving his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, and argued that the corpus delicti was not established with moral
certainty. Decide on the case.

Answer: No, the court should favor the accused-appellant.

According to the ruling in People vs. Hashim Nasa, the prosecution, to prove guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case.
The prosecution has the burden of showing that two conditions were complied with:
first, deviation was called for under the circumstances; and second, that the identity
and integrity of the evidence could not have been, at any stage, compromised. These
two conditions ensure that the spirit and intention of the chain of custody
requirement are complied with.

In this case however, the policemen’s failure to provide a physical inventory and
photograph at the place of search or at nearest police station challenged the
integrity of the corpus delicti of the crime. It follows that there was insufficient basis
for a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. For the same reason, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty does not hold. The
presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforces
deviated form the standard conducted of official duty required by law; where the
official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.

Thus, it is proper that the accused-appellant be acquitted. (People of the Philippines

vs. Hashim Asdali, G.R. No. 219835, August 29, 2018, Tijam, J.)
Criminal Law; Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs; Requirements for the Custody
and disposition of Seized Items and Exception to its non-compliance

Question: Stipulate the requirements concerning custody and disposition of

confiscated, seized and/or surrendered drugs and/or drugs paraphernalia.

Cite the rule when non-compliance does not ipso facto render the seizure and
custody over the items void and invalid.

Answer:
1. Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Act spells out:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official
and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where
the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office
of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items;

2. The Court in the case of People vs. Lumumba emphasized that the failure of the
apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of
RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the
items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that:
(a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

In People v. Almorfe, the Court explained that for the above-saving clause to apply,
the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses. and that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been
preserved. Also, in People v. De Guzman, it was emphasized that the justifiable
ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot
presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

(People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee vs Danny Lumumba Y Made, G.R. No.

232354, August 29, 2018, Tijam, J)
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs; Chain of Custody Rule

Question: What is the chain of custody rule in cases for the Illegal Sale and/or
Possession of Dangerous drugs?

Answer:
As alighted in the case of People vs. Quilang, to establish the identity of the
dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for
each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their
presentation in court as evidence of the crime. As part of the chain of custody
procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and
photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and
confiscation of the same. It is well to clarify, however, that under Section 21 (a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which was
later adopted into the text of RA 10640, the foregoing procedures may be instead
conducted at the place where the arrest or seizure occurred, at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in instances of warrantless seizures - such as in buy-bust operations. In
fact, case law recognizes that "marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates
even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team."
Hence, the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest
neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the
seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody.

(People of the Philippines vs. Jomar Quilang Y Bangayan, G.R. No. 232619, August
29, 2018, Perlas-Bernabe, J)
Criminal Law; Rape Case; Part of Res Gestae (Rule 130)

Question: Four separate informations for rape and one for attempted rape were
filed in the RTC against XXX. Upon arraignment, XXX pleaded "not guilty" to all
charges. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. During trial, the victim, AAA, died
before she could be subjected to cross-examination. The RTC, despite the lack of
AAA’s testimony due to her intervening death, mainly relied on the testimonies in
finding XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC found that the utterances
made by AAA to them, while not made immediately or simultaneous to the rape
incidents, could still be considered part of the res gestae as they were "so connected
with it as to make the act or declaration and the main fact inseparable, or be
generated by an excited feeling which extends, without break or let down, from the
moment of the event they illustrate."

Despite the death of the victim before the cross-examination, will XXX’s guilt for
three (3) counts of rape be proven beyond reasonable doubt?

Answer: The evidence is sufficient to prove XXX’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In criminal cases, the offended party is the State and the role of the private
complainant is limited to the determination of the civil liability of the accused.
Hence, in this case, considering that the death of AAA did not extinguish the criminal
liability of XXX, the trial rightfully ensued with the rest of the evidence for the
prosecution. The testimonies pertaining to the statements of AAA can be considered
part of the res gestae and thus produce a conviction.

As general rule, hearsay evidence is inadmissible in courts of law. As an exception,

however, Sec. 42 of Rule 130 allows the admission of hearsay evidence as part of the
res gestae, to wit: Sec. 42. Part of the res gestae. — Statements made by a person
while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent
thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part
of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the
issue, and giving it a legal significance may be received as part of the res gestae.

The following requisites must, thus, be satisfied for the exception to apply: (i) that
the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence; (ii) that the statements
were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood; and
(iii) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate
attending circumstances.

In this case, there is no cogent reason to appreciate the evidence against XXX. Court
should find XXX guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence of the
prosecution.

(People of the Philippines vs. XXX, G.R. No. 205888, August 22, 2018, Caguioa, J)
Criminal Law; Drug Case; Unbroken Chain of Custody

Question: The prosecution’s evidence against A consists of the testimonies of a

police officer, the forensic chemist, assigned poseur-buyer, officer assigned as the
receiving police, assigned photographer, assigned operation team leader, local
elected official present to witness the body search and assigned arresting officer. A
denies allegation and claimed that no buy-bust operation took place and the
improbability of 2 simultaneous buy-bust operations utilizing the same poseur-
buyer should affect the integrity of the seized item and prosecution failed to
establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized item.

Decide on the matter.

Answer: The claim of the accused does not hold water.

The case laws held that "if the evidence of illegal drugs was not handled precisely in
the manner prescribed by the chain of custody rule, the consequence relates not to
the inadmissibility that would automatically destroy the prosecution's case but
rather to the weight of evidence presented for each particular case." It further held
that the requirements of marking of the seized items, conduct of inventory, and
taking of photographs in the presence of a representative from the media or the DOJ
and a local elective official, are police investigation procedures which call for
administrative sanctions in case of non-compliance. Non-observance of such police
administrative procedures should not affect the validity of the seizure of the
evidence.

As demonstrated by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the

supporting documents they presented and offered, the chain of custody did not
suffer from serious flaws. As correctly observed, the integrity of the evidence is
presumed to be preserved unless there is showing of bad faith, ill-will or proof that
the evidence has been tampered with. In the case, A 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 public officers properly discharge their duties.

Therefore, the court should side against the accused.

(People of the Philippines vs. Henry Banquilay G.R. No. 231981, August 20, 2018,
Peralty, J)
Criminal Law; Rape case; Qualified rape

Question: AAA was a minor at the time she was raped by her father XXX. Her father
assailed that despite AAA’s claim of having raped, she appeared to have no apparent
fear or disgust against him and that the testimonies indicated that the rape charges
were filed was with manipulation.

Will XXX denial and allegation prosper?

Answer: No, XXX denial and allegation should not prosper.

According to the ruling in People vs. Salaver, the Court gives great weight to the
findings of the lower courts on the credibility of "AAA". "It is settled jurisprudence
that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, because when a
woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all
that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity." The Court has ruled that "a young girl's
revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to
medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be
compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily
dismissed as mere concoction.” This legal dictum especially applies in cases where
the assailant was her father.

In the case, XXX allegation is unfounded. Hence, XXX should be charged.

(People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Salaver, G.R. No. 223681, August 20, 2018,
Del Castillo, J)
Criminal Law; Drug case; Chain of Custody

Question: Acting on the information, a buy-bust team was organized. Marked

money was handed, A, in turn gave him a small plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance. The buy-bust team conducted a body search upon A and
recovered from him the marked money. Due to security reasons, the buy-bust team
brought A and the seized items to the barangay hall, where the required inventory
and photography were conducted in the presence of A and Barangay Kagawad.

A denied the accusations against him, claiming that at that time he was taking a bath
inside his house when he heard a number of individuals shouting his name. He
averred that upon opening the door, and he was arrested. Thereafter, he was
handcuffed and brought to the barangay hall where all the pieces of evidence were
shown to him. A appealed that the chain of custody had been broken from the
moment the dangerous drug was seized by the apprehending officers until it was
introduced in evidence.

Should conviction be granted against A?

Answer: No, court should favor A in this case.

According to the law, the following elements must be proven with moral certainty:
(a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Case law instructs that it is essential
that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty,
considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus
delicti of the crime. Case laws, however, clarified that under varied field conditions,
strict compliance with the requirements of the law may not always be possible. In
fact, law provides that the said inventory and photography may be conducted at the
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless
seizure, and that non-compliance with the requirements of the law – under
justifiable grounds – will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over
the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team.

In this case, inventory and the photography of the seized items were made in the
presence of A and an elected public official, the records do not show that the said
inventory and photography were done before any representative from the DOJ and
the media.

Hence, Court should be constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized item was compromised. Acquittal should be in order.

(People of the Philippines vs. Benjamin Feriol, G.R. No. 232154, August 20, 2018,
Perlas-Bernabe, J)
Criminal Law; Drug case; Chain of Custody

Question: A confidential agent told Intelligence Officer that a certain A was selling
shabu. The Intelligence Officer then arranged a meet-up with A. At around 7 o’clock
in the evening, the buy-bust team went to the transaction area. Police gave the
marked money to A, who in turn, handed over one heat-sealed plastic sachet. After
examining the same, the buy-bust team rushed to the scene and since it was about to
rain, the requisite inventory could not be conducted. Thus, the team went back to
PDEA wherein police prepared inventory of the seized items in the presence only of
a media representative. No explanation as to why barangay official was not present
during the requisite inventory and photography.

In defense of A, he claimed that at that time, he was on his way to the tiange to drink
with a friend, before reaching, some unknown men grabbed and handcuffed him and
shortly after, he and his friend were brought to an office where he was accused by
PDEA agents of selling shabu.

Should conviction for the crime be upheld against A?

Answer: No, conviction should not favor.

According to the case of People vs. Baptista, the absence of the aforementioned
required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible.
However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and
sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses must be adduced. Jurisprudence
dictates that the procedure enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter
of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality;
or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.

In this case, police did not provide a sufficient explanation why no barangay official
was present during the requisite inventory and photography. Simply stating that the
witnesses were invited, without more, is too plain and flimsy of an excuse so as to
justify non-compliance with the positive requirements of the law.

In the view of the foregoing, Court should conclude that there has been unjustified
breach of procedure and hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti had been compromised. A’s acquittal is in order.

(People of the Philippines vs. Christpher Baptista, G.R. No. 225783, August 20, 2018,
Perlas-Bernabe, J)
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs case; Chain of custody

Question: In the buy-bust operation, A was arrested for the sale of shabu. Inventory
of the seized item was witnessed by representative from the media and a councilor
of Barangay Sta. Cruz. While the prosecution was able to show that the seized item
was inventoried and photographed by the police officers in the presence of the
accused, representatives from the media, and barangay councilor, records fail to
disclose that said inventory and photography were conducted in the presence of a
representative from the DOJ as required by law.

Should conviction of the accused be upheld?

Answer: No, acquittal may properly be held.

According to the law, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over
the same by accounting for each link in the chain of custody from the moment of
seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti, in order to
prove its identity beyond reasonable doubt.

In the case, the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and
photography of the seized drugs is not per se fatal to the prosecution's cause.
However, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to demonstrate that genuine and
earnest efforts were employed in securing the presence of the DOJ representative or
that there exists a justifiable reason for non-compliance.

As the Court held in People v. Umipang, "[a] sheer statement that representatives
were unavailable – without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts
were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances – is to be
regarded as a flimsy excuse" – as in this case – and hence, not a valid excuse for non-
compliance.

Hence, acquittal of A is proper.

(People of the Philippines vs. Joseph Libre, et al, G.R. No. 235980, August 20, 2018,
Perlas-Bernabe, J)
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Case; Chain of Custody

Question: As to the chain of custody, what are the links which must be established
to establish unbroken chain of custody?

Answer:

As to the chain of custody, the Court has consistently ruled that the following links
must be established:

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.

The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons
who handle 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. It 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 there was no opportunity for
someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

(People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Celso Plaza, Joseph Guibao Balinton,

G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018, Gesmundo, J)
Criminal Law; Dangerous Drugs Case; Chain of Custody

Question 1: Define Chain of Custody

Answer 1:

The Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs,

Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment[22]
defines "chain of custody" as follows:

Section 1 (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.

Question 2: Explain the Chain of Custody Rule

Answer 2:

In Junie Mallillin y Lopez v. People of the Philippines, the Court explained that 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. Thus:

x x x 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.

Question 3: The records do not show that the arresting officers marked the seized
items with their initials in the presence of accused, and immediately upon
confiscation. Officers in the scene only brought marked money, and no camera, pen,
masking tape were brought. Is the chain of custody considered compromised?

Answer: Yes, it can be deduced, that at the outset, no arresting officer was so
minded to mark or even take a photo of the possible contraband that they may
recover from both accused. Obviously, right from the start, the arresting officers had
no intention to comply with the law by marking the seized items in the presence of
the accused and immediately upon confiscation. Thus, break in the chain of custody.

(People of the Philippines vs. Anthony Madria, G.R. No. 233207, August 20, 2018,
Tijam, J)
Criminal Law; Murder; Qualifying Circumstance

Question: A was charged with deliberate intent to kill with treachery and evident
premeditation to kill B with the used of an ice pick. A witness saw the victim held in
place on the right side by appellant and on the left by A while an unidentified person
held the victim’s feet. Thereafter, he witnessed A stab the victim.

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The CA affirmed the
decision. Hence, A filed appeal.

Was the victim’s stabbing attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery?

Answer: Yes, it is attended by qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Settled is the rule that "appellate courts accord the highest respect to the
assessment made by the trial court because of the trial judge's unique opportunity
to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude
under grueling examination." In Reyes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[22] that the findings of
the trial court will not be overturned absent any clear showing that it had
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or
substance. After all, it is settled that "alibi and denial are inherently weak defenses
and 'must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively
ascertained the identity of the accused'," as in this case.

"There is treachery when the offender employs means, methods or forms in the
execution of any of the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to
ensure its execution witht rihimself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make."

In this case, appellant and two others held the victim in place. Clearly, the victim's
stabbing was attended by treachery, considering that (a) the means of execution of
the attack gave the victim no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b)
said means of execution was deliberately adopted by appellant and his co-accused.

Hence, appeal should be dismissed.

(People of the Philippines vs. Jeffrey Collamat, Jimbo Saladaga and Ronilo Rondina,
G.R. No. 218200, August 15, 2018, Del Castillo, J)
Criminal Law; Rape case; Absence of Resistance; Purported Romantic
Relationship

Question 1: Information for Rape was filed against Ramos did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force and intimidation have carnal
knowledge with A against her will and consent.

Ramos ensued that A’s claim that she struggled against his advances is belied by the
absence of any physical injuries on her body.

Will his contention hold water?

Answer 1: No, his contention does not hold water. It must be noted that the absence
of bodily injury does not negate the commission of rape. In case of People vs. Zafra,
“the absence of external signs of physical injuries does not negate rate.” It is a well-
settled rule that "the force used in the commission of rape need not be
overpowering or absolutely irresistible." "A rape victim has no burden to prove that
she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her."
Resistance is not an element of rape. What is essential is simply that the force
employed was sufficient to enable the offender to consummate the lewd purpose
which he had in mind.

Question 2: Ramos claims that he and A were lovers and as such, their sexual
intercourse was consensual. Will his defense hold water?

Answer 2: No, it does not hold water. It cannot be gainsaid that in cases where the
accused raises the "sweetheart defense," there must be proof by compelling
evidence, that the accused and the victim were in fact lovers, and that the victim
consented to the alleged sexual relations. The second is as important as the first,
because love is not a license for lust.

(People of the Philippines vs Sonny Ramos, G.R. No. 210435, August 15, 2018, A.
Reyes, Jr., J)
Criminal Law; Anti-Graft case; Elements

Question: What are the elements of the offense defined in violating Section 3(g) of
RA No. 2019 Corrupt practices of public officers?

Answer:

In Henry T. Go vs. Sandiganbayan, the elements of the offense defined in Section 3(g)
of R.A. No. 3019 were enumerated, to wit:
(1) that the accused is a public officer;
(2) that he or she entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the
government; and
(3) that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government.

(Josie Castillo-Co vs Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R.

No. 184766, August 15, 2018, A. Reyes Jr., J)
Criminal Law;