CASE TITLE Jacaban v People

FULL CASE NAME ARNULFO a.k.a. ARNOLD JACABAN, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

DOCKET NO. & DATE G.R. No. 184355 | March 23, 2015

PONENTE PERALTA, J.

TOPIC Searches and seizures

DOCTRINE

SYNOPSIS On July 16, 1999 at 12:45mn, a team of police accompanied by 3 barangay tanods
searched the residence of Jacaban at J. Labra St., Guadalupe, Cebu City, under the
authority of a search warrant issued by the RTC of Cebu. A number of firearms and
ammunitions were found and seized therein. Jacaban was then charged and found
guilty of illegal possession of firearms by the RTC of Cebu and CA. He appeals to the
SC on the ground that the searched house in Labra St. is not his house. HELD: CA
Decision affirmed. Even assuming that petitioner is not the owner of the house where
the items were recovered, he indeed had control of the house. More importantly the
ownership of the house is not an essential element of the crime under PD 1866 as
amended, w/c were all established by the prosecution.

FACTS
1. On July 15, 1999, Police Senior Inspector Ipil H. Dueñas filed an Application for Search
Warrant before Branch 22 of the RTC, Cebu City, to search the premises of [appellant's]
residence at J. Labra St., Guadalupe, Cebu City and seize the following items:
a. One (1) 7.62 cal M-14 Rifle;
b. Two (2) 5.56 mm M16 Armalite Rifle;
c. One (1) 12 gauge Shotgun;
d. One (1) .45 cal. Pistol;
e. One (1) .9 mm cal. Pistol
2. A Search Warrant was then issued by Judge Pampio A. Abarintos
3. At about 12:45 in the morning of July 16, 1999, the search warrant was implemented by
P/S Insp. Dueñas as the team leader; the team also invited 3 barangay tanods to
accompany them
4. The team proceeded to search the living room in the presence of three tanods and the
appellant himself. The team continued to search the room where SPO2 Abellana found a
calibre .45 placed in the ceiling.
5. After an exhaustive search was done, other firearms and ammunitions were recovered
from the searched premises. An inventory was made at the living room of appellant in the
presence of appellant himself, the barangay tanods and other persons present during the
search. Appellant and witnesses then signed the inventory receipt
 6. Police Officer IV Dionisio V. Sultan, Chief Clerk of the Firearms and Explosives Division
of the Philippine National Police-Visayas testified that Jacaban is not licensd to possess
any kind of firearm or ammunition
7. DEFENSE: For the defense, they presented witness Felipenerie Jacaban, older sister of
the appellant, who testified as to her presence during the conduct of the search, and that:
a. The raid was conducted in the house of their uncle Gabriel Arda, not in his brother’s
house
b. Jacaban only went to their uncle’s house because he learned that the police were
looking for him
c. Jacaban never made any protest during the search and merely observed the
proceeding
LOWER COURT RULINGS
1. RTC: convicted Jacaban of the crime charged. Sentenced him to a penalty of
imprisonment of from 6 yrs+1 day of prision mayor, as minimum to 6 yrs+8 mos, as
maximum, plus fine in the amount of P30,000
2. CA: affirmed RTC decision in toto

ISSUE: WON Jacaban is guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions under
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act (RA) 8294

HELD: YES.

RATIO:
1. All elements of the crime are present and established. The essential elements in the
prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions are:
a. The existence of subject firearm; and
b. The fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the
corresponding license for it.
2. The prosecution had proved the essential elements of the crime.
a. The existence of the seized firearm and the ammunitions was established through
the testimony of PO3 Sarte. There was an inventory of the items seized which was
made in the presence of the petitioner and the three barangay tanods who all
voluntarily signed the inventory receipt. PO3 Sarte identified all the seized items in
open court.
b. Petitioner's lack of authority to possess the firearm was established by the
testimony of Police Officer IV Dionisio V. Sultan
3. The unvarying rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely possession, which includes not
only actual physical possession, but also constructive possession.
4. It was convincingly proved that petitioner had constructive possession of the gun and the
ammunition, coupled with the intent to possess the same.
a. He was there when the Warrant was served and executed
b. He grappled with a police officer to get hold one gun found in the house
 5. Anent petitioner's argument that the house where the firearm was found was not owned
by him is not persuasive.
a. If he wasn’t really the owner of the house, why did he not protest it during the
search?
b. And what was he and his wife doing in that house at 12:45mn?
6. Even assuming that petitioner is not the owner of the house where the items were
recovered, the ownership of the house is not an essential element of the crime under PD
1866 as amended. While petitioner may not be the owner, he indeed had control of the
house as shown by the following circumstances:
a. When the PAOCTF went to the house to serve the search warrant, petitioner was
very angry and restless and even denied having committed any illegal act, but he
was assured by P/SInsp. Dueñas that he has nothing to answer if they would not
find anything, thus, he consented to the search being conducted;
b. While the search was ongoing, petitioner merely observed the conduct of the
search and did not make any protest at all
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated July 30,
2008, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Petitioner is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of imprisonment ranging from SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional in its maximum
period, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor
minimum in its medium period, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED

CASE TITLE Navaja

FULL CASE NAME

DOCKET NO. & DATE

PONENTE

TOPIC

DOCTRINE

SYNOPSIS

CASE TITLE Estrada

FULL CASE NAME

DOCKET NO. & DATE

PONENTE

TOPIC

DOCTRINE

SYNOPSIS

CASE TITLE

FULL CASE NAME

DOCKET NO. & DATE

PONENTE

TOPIC

DOCTRINE

SYNOPSIS

CASE TITLE PDIC

FULL CASE NAME

DOCKET NO. & DATE

PONENTE

TOPIC

DOCTRINE

SYNOPSIS

CASE TITLE Anlud

FULL CASE NAME

DOCKET NO. & DATE

PONENTE

TOPIC

DOCTRINE

SYNOPSIS

CASE TITLE Microsoft

FULL CASE NAME MICROSOFT CORPORATION and ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, petitioners,
vs.
SAMIR FARAJALLAH, VIRGILIO D.C. HERCE, RACHEL P. FOLLOSCO, JESUSITO G.
MORALLOS, and MA. GERALDINE S. GARCIA (directors and officers of NEW FIELDS
[ASIA PACIFIC], INC.), respondents.

DOCKET NO. & DATE G.R. No. 205800. September 10, 2014.

PONENTE CARPIO, J.

TOPIC Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

DOCTRINE When the witnessesses personally verify the informant’s tip, there is compliance with
the requirement of personal knowledge which can be the basis for the existence of a
probable cause.

SYNOPSIS Microsoft and Adobe Software Corps. (foreign corps.) received a tip from a
confidential informant that New Fields (domestic corp.) was unlawfully reproducing
and using unlicensed versions of their software. They filed a complaint before the
PNP-CIDG, the police officers then conducted an investigation with at New Fields
Office and found that two computers use the same Product IDs and serial numbers
which according to the police officers were indicative of the alleged acts. The police
officers then applied for search warrants. The judge granted 2 warrants and these
were subsequently served to New Fields’ employees. Several computers and other
items were seized. Subsequently, New Fields moved for the quashal of one of the
warrants. The RTC granted and quashed both warrants. CA affirmed. HELD -
probable cause is sufficiently established, the warrants should be upheld.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the CA.

I. FACTS
A. Parties
1. Petitioners are foreign corporations organized under the laws of the US, namely:
 a) Microsoft Corporation – owner of all rights over the Microsoft Software
and related user’s manual. Also the registered owner of the “Microsoft”
“MS DOS” trademarks in the Ph.
b) Adobe Systems Incorporated – owner of all rights over the Adobe
Software.
2. Respondents are officers and directors of New Fields (Asia Pacific), Inc., a
domestic corporation.
B. Sep 2009 – the petitioners received an informant’s tip that the respondents were
unlawfully reproducing and using unlicensed versions of their software
1. Orion Support, Inc. (OSI) was engaged by petitioners to verify this claim;
C. March 2010 – the petitioners filed a letter-complaint with the Chief of PNP-CIDG
1. Police Officers Padilla, Serrano and Moradoz went to New Fields’ office and
checked two computers. They found out that: the Microsoft and Adobe software
installed in both computers have identical Product ID and serial numbers.
According to the report, this signifies that: [1] the Microsoft software on the two
computers came from one installer, and [2] New Fields used only one installer of
Adobe software program on two computers;
2. In this case, New Fields is deemed to be unlawfully reproducing the software and
using unlicensed versions of the same since it has no Open License Agreement
with the developers;
3. They also noted that New Fields had 90 computers with Microsoft Software, none
of which had Certificate of Authenticity issued by Microsoft.
D. The petitioners then issued certifications that they have not authorized New Fields to copy,
print, or reproduce unauthorized copies of their software products.
E. Police Officer Padilla applied for search warrants before RTC Executive Judge Amor Reyes
1. Judge Reyes then issued the two search warrants
F. May 2010 – the warrants were served
1. New Fields employees witnessed the search
2. They seized several items including:
a) 17 CD installers
b) 83 computes with unauthorized copies of Microsoft and/or Adobe
software.
G. June 6, 2010 – the respondents moved to quash one of the search warrants
1. The petitioners received the motion of June 10, 2010 and was set for hearing on
June 11, 2010;
2. Thus, on their comments, petitioners assert that the motion should not be given
due course for failure to comply with the mandatory 3-day notice rule under the
ROC.
H. Lower court decisions
1. RTC – Quashed the two search warrants + ordered the return of seized items, as
it was eventually returned on July 8, 2010
 a) Ratio of RTC
(1) The warrants fail to identify the specific computers with pirated
software
(2) No criminal charges had been filed yet despite the fact that
petitioners had been in possession of the seized items for weeks
already;
(3) Three-day notice rule dismissed on ground that petitioners had
already been informed personally.
b) Subsequent motions
(1) July 8 2010 – by petitioners: Urgent Manifestation and Motion for
the Issuance of a Status Quo
(2) July 9 2010 – by respondents: Motion to expunge petitioners’ MR
(3) July 15 2010 – by petitioners: MR
(4) Respondents filed a comment/opposition received by petitioners
on Aug 12 2010.
(5) RTC denied MR
2. CA – Sustained RTC orders
a) The right of petitioners to due process was not violated when they are
ordered by RTC to submit their comments on the motion to quash;
b) The three-day notice rule need not be strictly observed when its purpose
had been satisfied, i.e. to give the petitioners a day in court;
c) the witnesses had “no personal knowledge of the facts upon which the
issuance of the warrants may be justified,” and the applicants and
witnesses merely relied on the screen shots acquired from the confidential
informant.

II. ISSUE-HELD-RATIO

Had the CA erred in ruling that Judge Amor Reyes gravely abused her discretion in quashing the two
search warrants and directing the immediate release of the seized items despite pendency of the appellate
proceedings? State otherwise, was there a probable cause for the issuance of subject warrants? – YES.

1. Compliance with the three-day notice rule. The three-day notice rule is not absolute. The purpose
of the rule is to safeguard the adverse party’s right to due process. Thus, if the adverse party was
given a reasonable opportunity to study the motion and oppose it, then strict compliance with the
three-day notice rule may be dispensed with.
2. Existence of probable cause.
a. The existence of probable cause is a question of fact;
b. Probable cause is dependent largely on the opinion and findings of the judge conducting
the examination. His findings are entitled to great weight and will not be overturned by
 the reviewing court except upon proof that the judge disregarded the facts before him or
ignored the clear dictates of reason;
c. GR is that SC is not a trier of facts, but this case falls within the exception as there was
grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
d. The CA sustained the quashal of the warrant because the witnesses had “no personal
knowledge of the facts upon which the issuance of the warrants may be justified,” and the
applicants and the witnesses merely relied on the screen shots acquired from the
confidential informant.
e. HOWEVER, from the records, it shows that Padilla was able to personally verify the
informant’s tip as indicated in his Affidavit:
f. He narrated how he personally saw the Product Keys or Product Identification;
i. He actively read and attentively observed the information reflected from the
monitor display unit of the computers used by the other police officers;
ii. Padilla has been trained to distinguish illegally reproduced Adobe and Microsoft
software. Thus he had basis when he indicated in his Affidavit that the Adobe and
Microsoft computer software programs that are being used in the premises of
New Fields are unauthorized, illegal or unlicensed copies.
g. The requirement of personal knowledge of the applicant and witnesses was clearly
satisfied in this case.

III. DIPOSITIVE

Petition granted, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

CASE TITLE Aguinaldo v. Ventus (Hazel)

FULL CASE NAME Felilibeth Aguinaldo and Benjamin Perez, petitioners, v. Reynaldo P. Ventus and Jojo
B. Jocson, respondents

DOCKET NO. & DATE G.R. No. 176033 | March 11, 2015

PONENTE Peralta, J.

TOPIC Determination of Probable Cause

DOCTRINE Quashal of a warrant of arrest may only take place upon the finding that no probable
cause exists.

SYNOPSIS Ventus and Jocson filed a complaint for estafa against Aguinaldo and Perez before the
OCP alleging that the latter 2 connived in convincing them to shell out money in
consideration of vehicles which was misrepresented to be owned by Aguinaldo but
was in fact not. This case mostly detailed the procedural developments dating back to
2002, eventually leading to Aguinaldo and Perez seeking appeal from SC. The Court
denied the petition for review and because 11 years has passed since the filing of the
petition for review before the DOJ (one of the issues in the case), the Court reminded
the lower court judges that pendency of motion of reconsideration, motion for
reinvestigation, or petition for review is not a cause for the quashal of a warrant of
arrest because quashal of warrant of arrest may only take place upon finding that no
probable cause exists.

FACTS
 1. Reynaldo Ventus, Jojo Jocson, Felilibeth Aguinaldo, and Benjamin Perez are business
partners in financing casino players1
2. Dec 2, 2002 - Ventus and Jocson filed a complaint for estafa against Aguinaldo and
Perez before the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP);
a. They allege that Aguinaldo and Perez connived in convincing them to shell out
P260K in consideration of a pledge of 2 motor vehicles which Aguinaldo and
Perez misrepresented to be owned by Aguinaldo but in reality is owned by
Levita De Castro (manger/operator of LEDC Rent-A-Car)
b. Perez’ involvement: (1) showed them photocopies of the registration paper of the
motor vehicles in the name of Aguinaldo + (2) personally took them out from the
rent-a-car company2
3. Perez’ defense: denied the accusation against him
a. His only participation was limited to introducing Ventus and Jocson to Aguinaldo3
b. Neither original nor photocopies of the registration was required by Ventus and
Jocson because from the very start, they were informed by Aguinaldo that she
merely leased the vehicles from LEDC Rent-A-Car4
4. Feb 25, 2003 - Ass’t City Prosecutor (ACP) recommended that Aguinaldo and Perez be
indicted in court for estafa under Article 315, par. 2 of the RPC
a. July 16, 2003 - an Information charging Aguinaldo and Perez with estafa was
filed before the RTC (Criminal Case 03-216182)
5. July 31, 2003 - Perez was arrested
6. Subsequent Procedural Developments
Date Who + Where Action Filed Resolution
Filed

July 31, 2003 Perez Urgent Motion for Reduction to Bail to GRANTED
(RTC) be Posted in Cash July 31, 2003

July 31, 2003 Aguinaldo, Very Urgent Motion to Recall or Quash GRANTED
Perez Warrants of Arrest Aug 6 Order
(RTC) contending that Feb 25, 2003 insofar as Aguinaldo
was concerned,
Resolution has not yet attained finality
pending the
as they intended to file an MR resolution of the MR
filed with OCP

Aug 4, 2003 Aguinaldo, Motion for Reconsideration DENIED

Perez for lack of merit
(OCP) sometime after Dec

1
Claimed by Ventus and Jocson
2
Reply-Affidavit, January 22, 2003
3
Counter-Affidavit, January 15, 2003
4
Rejoinder-Affidavit, January 29, 2003
Aug 4, 2003 Aguinaldo, Motion for Withdrawal of the 23, 2003 but before
Perez Information Prematurely Filed with the Jan 16, 2004
(OCP) RTC

Aug 9, 2003 Aguinaldo, Urgent Motion for Cancellation of RTC ordered the
Perez Arraignment proceedings to be
(RTC) pending resolution of MR filed with deferred until
OCP resolution of the MR
filed with OCP

Dec 23, 2003 RTC ordered Criminal Case 03-216182 be archived

pending the resolution of MR filed with OCP

Jan 16, 2004 OCP filed Motion to Set Case for Trial before the RTC
considering MR and Motion for Withdrawal of Information have already been
denied for lack of merit

Feb 27, 2004 Aguinaldo, Petition for Review PENDING

Perez
(DOJ)

Mar 15, 2004 RTC (1) issued Warrant of Arrest against Aguinaldo and (2) set the case for
arraignment
Acting on prosecution’s recommendation for denial of MR + Withdrawal of
Information and its Motion to set the case for trial

Mar 15, 2004 Aguinaldo, Urgent Motion for Reconsideration GRANTED

Perez Apr 16 Order
(RTC)

Mar 26, 2004 Aguinaldo, Urgent Motion to Cancel Arraignment

Perez and Suspend Further Proceedings
(RTC) until petition for review with DOJ is
resolved with finality

7. Jun 23, 2004 - De Castro filed Motion to Reinstate Case and to Issue Warrant of Arrest;
a. Claims to be a private complainant in Criminal Case 03-216182 (estafa case)
which was archived
b. Aguinaldo and Perez filed Opposition with Motion to Expunge, alleging that De
Castro is not a party to the case which is in active file (awaiting resolution of
petition for review before DOJ)
c. Oct 15, 2004 - De Castro informed RTC that DOJ had already denied Aguinaldo
and Perez’ Petition for Review last September 6, 2004 for estafa (De Castro v.
Aguinaldo) [NOTE: She was referring to a different case of estafa ie diff parties
and not the case at hand]
 d. May 16, 2005 - RTC granted Motion to Reinstate the Case and to Issue Warrant
of Arrest
8. May 30, 2005 - Aguinaldo and Perez filed a MR with Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest
a. Aug 23, 2005 - RTC denied this and set of Aguinaldo and Perez’s arraignment as
the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure/ROC allows only a 60-day period of
suspension of arraignment
i. Cited Crespo v. Mogul - issuance of warrant of arrest is best left to the
discretion of the trial court
ii. Noted that DOJ has not yet resolved the petition for review although
photocopies were presented by De Castro
9. Aguinaldo and Perez appealed to CA for grave abuse of discretion
a. CA dismissed the petition and subsequent MR for lack of merit
10. Aguinaldo and Perez appeals to SC, contending that:
a. De Castro was not a proper party to Criminal Case 03-216182 > Hence, it was
wrong to grant her Motion to Reinstate the Case and to Issue a Warrant of Arrest
i. RTC granted the Motion, relying on De Castro’s purported denial of petition
for review which was ultimately not the case at hand
b. Sec 11, Rule 116 of ROC (max time of suspension allowed for arraignment) is
merely directory - may be relaxed in the interest of an orderly and speedy
administration of justice
i. Thus, RTC cannot deprive Aguinaldo and Perez their right to due process
as their petition for review has not yet been resolved by DOJ
c. Preliminary Investigation on Criminal Case 03-216182 by the OCP has not yet
been completed
i. Even before they could receive DOJ resolution denying their petition for
review (thus move for its MR), Information in Criminal Case 03-216182
had already been filed on Jul 16, 2003
ii. This put Aguinaldo and Perez at risk of incarceration w/o preliminary
investigation having been completed (bec they were not afforded their right
to file an MR for the DOJ resolution)
iii. Arguments:
1. Right to preliminary investigation is a substantive, not merely a
procedural right
2. Information filed w/o affording right to file an MR is fatally premature
a. Sales v. Sandiganbayan: filing of an MR is an integral part
of the preliminary investigation proper; Information filed w/o
affording accused his right to MR is tantamount to denial of
right to a preliminary investigation
3. Denial of a complete preliminary investigation deprives the accused
of the full measure of his right to due process and infringes on his
constitutional right to liberty

ISSUES/HELD:
1. WON DE CASTRO WAS NOT A PROPER PARTY - YES
2. WON SEC 11, RULE 116 OF ROC IS MERELY DIRECTORY - NO
3. WON FILING OF THE INFORMATION IN CRIMINAL CASE 03-216182 PUT AGUINALDO
AND PEREZ AT RISK OF INCARCERATION W/O PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION HAVING
BEEN COMPLETED BEC THEY WERE NOT AFFORDED THE RIGHT TO FILE AN MR - NO

RATIO:
1. WON DE CASTRO WAS NOT A PROPER PARTY - YES
● De Castro is not even a private complainant, but a mere witness for being the owner of
the vehicles allegedly used by Aguinaldo and Perez in defrauding Ventus and Jocson
● RTC relied on the wrong DOJ Resolution; the DOJ Resolution that should’ve been the
basis is still pending resolution
● Thus, De Castro’s motion was a mere scrap of paper w/ no legal effect > Aguinaldo and
Perez’s Motion to expunge should have been granted
2. WON SEC 11, RULE 116 OF ROC IS MERELY DIRECTORY - NO
● Jurisprudence:
○ Samson v. Judge Daway: After the expiration of the period of suspension, the trial
court is bound to arraign the accused or to deny the motion to defer arraignment
○ Dino v. Olivarez: did not sanction an indefinite suspension of the proceedings in
trial court
○ Heirs of Feraren v. CA:
■ While rules of procedure are liberally construed, provisions on
reglementary periods are strictly applied as they are indispensable to
prevent delays and necessary for the orderly and speedy discharge of
judicial business
■ Rules of procedure do not exist for the convenience of the litigants > not
overlooked by mere invocation of “substantial justice”
■ Relaxation of procedural rules only warranted by compelling reasons or
when the purpose of justice requires it
○ Application to case: there is no compelling reason to warrant relaxation of
procedural rules
■ Relevant Facts:
● Feb 27, 2004 - Aguinaldo and Perez filed Petition for Review with
the DOJ
● April 16, 2004 - RTC granted the suspension of arraignment of
Aguinaldo and Perez
● May 16, 2005 - RTC granted Motion to Reinstate the Case and to
Issue Warrant of Arrest
■ Held:
● More than 1 year has lapsed between (1) Feb 27, 2004 and Apr 16,
2004 and (2) May 16, 2005 > more than an ample time to give
Aguinaldo and Perez an opportunity to obtain a resolution of their
petition for review from the DOJ
○ RTC had already been very liberal in applying the rule on
the period of suspension
 ● Delay by the DOJ does not extend the period of suspension (60
days) prescribed by Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
● Aguinaldo and Perez is faulted for the delay
○ Counsel received letter (Apr 15, 2004) - DOJ requiring her
to submit pleadings relative to the petition for review > only
complied with on October 15, 2004
● More than 11 years had already passed from the petition for review
and Aguinaldo and Perez have yet to be arraigned > high time for
continuation of trial on merits of the case below as the 60-day period
from the filing of petition of review had long lapsed
3. WON FILING OF THE INFORMATION IN CRIMINAL CASE 03-216182 PUT AGUINALDO
AND PEREZ AT RISK OF INCARCERATION W/O PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION HAVING
BEEN COMPLETED BEC THEY WERE NOT AFFORDED THE RIGHT TO FILE AN MR - NO
● Yes, right to preliminary investigation is a substantive not merely a procedural right
○ But Aguinaldo and Perez are wrong in arguing that the Information filed was fatally
premature as it did not afford the right to file an MR
■ Aguinaldo and Perez’s reliance on Sales is misplaced: the Sales case
denied right to MR of an adverse resolution in a preliminary investigation
before filing the Information
■ Compare with THIS case: Aguinaldo and Perez were afforded their right to
MR of the adverse resolution in a preliminary investigation when they filed
Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Withdrawal of Information
Prematurely filed with the RTC (Aug 4, 2003)
● Due Process simply demands an opportunity to be heard; satisfied when parties are
afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides
○ Perez and Aguinaldo cannot decry of denial of right to preliminary investigation:
○ Perez submitted his Counter-Affidavit and Rejoinder-Affidavit to OCP
before the filing of Information of Estafa
○ Aguinaldo did not receive notice of the preliminary investigation BUT she
was given the opportunity to be heard during the investigation
■ Aguinaldo filed an MR (relying on Perez’s Counter-Affidavit and
Rejoinder-Affidavit)

NOTE BY THE COURT TO JUDGES OF LOWER COURTS TO AVOID DELAY IN

PROCEEDINGS:
● pendency of an MR, Motion for Reinvestigation, or Petition for Review - NOT a cause for
quashal of warrant of arrest previously issued
● Quashal of warrant arrest may only take place upon finding that no probable cause exists
● The following are guidelines set by the Court:
○ IF there is a pending MR, or Motion for Reinvestigation of the resolution of public
prosecutor, or a pending petition for review before the DOJ
■ Court may suspend proceedings upon motion of parties
■ BUT Court should (1) set the arraignment of the accused and (2) direct
public prosecutor or DOJ to submit the resolution disposing of the
 motion/petition on or before the period fixed by the Court (for MR and
Motion for Reinvestigation) counted from the granting of the Motion to
Suspend Arraignment or at most 60 days counted from the filing of petition
for review before the DOJ
● IF public prosecutor/DOJ does not comply with period requirement
> Court will proceed with arraignment as scheduled without further
delay

DISPOSITION: Petition DENIED, Case remanded to trial court

CASE TITLE People v. Punzalan

FULL CASE NAME PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERRY PUNZALAN AND
PATRICIA PUNZALAN, Accused-Appellants.

DOCKET NO. & DATE G.R. No. 199087, November 11, 2015

PONENTE VILLARAMA, JR., J.

TOPIC Unreasonable search and seizure

NATURE

DOCTRINE ● Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC clearly authorizes the Executive Judges
and the Vice-Executive Judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon City to issue search
warrants to be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction in special criminal cases
such as those involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and
ammunitions as well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
as in this case, for as long as the parameters under the said section have been complied
with.
● Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: 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.

SYNOPSIS The PDEA team, led by Intelligence Agent 1 Liwanag Sandaan, obtained a search warrant from
the Manila RTC to search the residence of the Punzalans for dangerous drugs. They were
accompanied by people from the barangay. Once there, Patricia Punzalan initially refused to let
them in, but was unable to protest after the PDEA team entered. The team was able to obtain
plastic sachets of a substance suspected to be shabu. After doing inventory, the PDEA brought
Jerry and Patricia Punzalan to the PDEA office. Because the substance tested positive to be shabu,
the Punzalans were arrested and charged with violation of RA 9165. RTC and CA found them
guilty. Upon appeal, the Punzalans raised the ff. issues: 1) search warrant was not validly obtained,
2) the chain of custody was not followed, and 3) they were not proven to be guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. SC affirmed the CA decision and dismissed the appeal.

FACTS
1. November 3, 2009, 4:30 AM. Intelligence Agent 1 Liwanag Sandaan (IA1 Sandaan) + her team (all from PDEA)
implemented a search warrant.
a. Search warrant was issued on October 28, 2009
b. Issued by Manila RTC Judge Eduardo B. Peralta Jr.
c. Purpose:
i. Search the premises/house of Jerry, Patricia, Vima, and Jaime Punzalan, and Arlene and Felix
Razon in 704 Apelo Cruz Compound, Barangay 175, Malibay, Pasay City
ii. Seize and take possession of an undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs, including
the proceeds or fruits and bring said property to the court.
d. Because there are 3 houses / structures in the specified address, a sketch of the compound was prepared
and attached to the search warrant.
2. Before proceeding to the target area, they coordinated with the barangay chairman + kagawads. They also
brought with them a media representative from Sunshine Radio to cover the operation.
3. When they arrived
a. IA1 Sandaan knocked on the door. It was opened by Patricia Punzalan.
b. When they introduced themselves as PDEA and said that they have search warrants, Patricia tried
closing the door but was unsuccessful.
c. The PDEA team was able to enter the house. IO1 Pagaragan showed and read the search warrant in
front of the accused Jerry and Patricia.
d. They saw plastic sachets on top of the table. IO1 Pagaragan was able to seize 9 heat-sealed plastic
sachets, 2 square-shaped transparent plastic containers, and a small round plastic container. These
plastic containers contained a white crystalline substance of suspected shabu.
e. There were also other paraphernalia, guns, money and a digital weighing scale.
f. SI2 Esteban and IO2 Alvarado effected the arrest of Jerry and Patricia after informing them of their
constitutional rights.
g. IO1 Pagaragan immediately marked the seized items by placing the marking "ADP".
h. 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.
i. 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.
4. Arrest
a. Jerry and Patricia were brought to the PDEA office in Quezon City for investigation.
b. 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. They likewise
caused the preparation of their respective affidavits.
c. Photographs were also taken during the actual search and inventory. Laboratory examination of the
seized pieces of drug evidence gave positive results for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride aka shabu.
d. Jerry and Patricia were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for illegal
possession of 40.78 grams of shabu.
5. Defense of Jerry and Patricia
a. At around 5:45 in the morning of November 3, 2009, he was at his store located at 704, A-44 Apelo
Cruz Street, Pasay City. Their house and store are two separate structures which are 70 meters apart.
Patricia was inside the store fixing the grains.
b. Jerry was about to open the store when he saw men running toward their main house, carrying a tank
with hose attached to it. Jerry followed them and saw the men applying acetylene on their steel gate.
Jerry shouted at them but the men poked their guns at him and when he answered in the affirmative
 after being asked if he is Jerry, they placed him in metal handcuffs, held him at the back of his shirt and
brought him to his garage, about 30 meters from their house.
c. He was later made to board a van. Inside the van, his wife Patricia was already there with her hands
bound in plastic. They stayed there for more or less three hours.
d. Then, Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Flores arrived. They were brought by the PDEA agents to their
main house. Upon reaching the house, Jerry and Patricia noticed that their belongings were already
scattered. Inside their house, there were two kagawads, two female and two male PDEA agents, whom
they later identified as IO1 Pagaragan, IA1 Sandaan, SI2 Esteban and IO2 Alvarado, Kagawad Larry
Fabella and Kagawad Edwin Razon.
e. Their pieces of jewelry, cash amounting to P985,000 or almost a million pesos, 3,711 US dollars, 3,100
Holland, Euro, Malaysian Ringgit, things belonging to their children like PSP, gameboy, video camera,
14 units of cellphone, licensed gun, and three kilos of gold were likewise missing. (Jerry testified that he
kept a huge amount of cash in the house because he is engaged in "5-6" money-lending business. He
also sells rice from Bulacan.)

LOWER COURT RULING

● RTC
○ Convicted Jerry and Patricia for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced them
to suffer a penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
○ Reason:
■ 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 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.
■ The implementation of the search warrant sufficiently complied with the requirements of the
law. Despite accused-appellants' assertion that they were arrested outside their house and were
made to board a van parked along the street beside the river and were not allowed by the
PDEA agents to witness the search conducted inside the house, the trial court was convinced
that Jerry and Patricia Punzalan were in fact inside their house and were physically present
during the conduct of the search.
○ 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 not
important 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 trial court held that the prosecution
successfully and sufficiently established that the two accused were present during the initial
search, thus, satisfying the requirement of a lawful and valid search.
■ 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 IO1 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. In fact, it was admitted by the barangay officials that they were requested to
wait for the DOJ representative, to which they willingly acceded.
○ Accused-appellants filed an MR but it was denied.
○ The trial court modified the sentence by increasing the penalty to life imprisonment and the fine to
P400,000.00.

● CA
○ Affirmed the conviction of Jerry and Patricia.
○ Reason:
■ 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.
○ Since the seized shabu weighs 40.78 grams, the modified penalty of life imprisonment and fine of
P400,000.00 is maintained pursuant to Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.

ISSUES/RATIO/HELD

● ISSUE 1: WON the search warrant was illegally procured and unlawfully implemented – NO.
○ WARRANT WAS VALIDLY OBTAINED.
■ Jerry and Patricia
● The PDEA agents who applied for a search warrant failed to comply with the
requirements for the procurement of a search warrant particularly the approval of
the PDEA Director General.
● The court which issued the search warrant, the RTC of Manila, Branch 17, had no
authority to issue the search warrant since the place where the search is supposed to
be conducted is outside its territorial jurisdiction.

■ SC
● A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, entitled "Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of
Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties" as approved
by the Court in its Resolution of January 27, 2004, as amended, provides:

SEC. 12. Issuance of search warrants in special criminal cases by the Regional Trial Courts of Manila and Quezon City. - The Executive
Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive
Judges of the RTCs of Manila and Quezon City shall have authority to act on applications filed by the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Anti-Crime Task Force (ACTAF), for search warrants
involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as well as violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001,
the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, and other relevant laws that may hereafter be enacted by Congress, and included
herein by the Supreme Court.
The applications shall be endorsed by the heads of such agencies or their respective duly authorized officials and shall
particularly describe therein the places to be searched and/or the property or things to be seized as prescribed in the Rules
of Court. The Executive Judges and Vice-Executive Judges concerned shall issue the warrants, if justified, which may be
served outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said courts.

● In the instant case, aside from their bare allegation, accused-appellants failed to show
that the application for search warrant of the subject premises was not approved by
the PDEA Regional Director or his authorized representative.
 ● The search warrant issued complies with the requirements for the issuance thereof
as determined by the issuing court, thus:

Pursuant to Section 2, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution, Sections 2 to 5, Rule 126 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, modified by Section 12 of Supreme Court En Bane Resolution in A.M. No. 03-08-02-SC dated January 27,
2004, and Certification dated October 28, 2009, it appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after personally
examining under oath Agent Liwanag B. Sandaan and Agent Derween Reed both of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
Metro Manila Regional Office, that there is probable cause, there are good and sufficient reasons, to believe that
undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs, particularly shabu, including the proceeds or fruits and those used or
intended to be used by the respondents as a means of committing the offense, you are hereby commanded to make an
immediate search at any time in the day or night of the premises above described and forthwith seize and take possession
of the undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs including the proceeds, fruits and bring said property to the
undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs.

○ THE MANILA RTC HAD JURISDICTION TO ISSUE THE WARRANT.

■ Section 12, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC clearly authorizes the Executive Judges and
the Vice-Executive Judges of the RTC of Manila and Quezon City to issue search warrants to
be served in places outside their territorial jurisdiction in special criminal cases such as those
involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as
well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as in this case, for as
long as the parameters under the said section have been complied with.

○ THE ACCUSED WERE IN THE HOUSE DURING THE SEARCH.

■ Jerry and Patricia
● Accused-appellants insist that they were not inside their house and were inside the
closed van when their house was searched.
● Upon forcibly breaking into their house through the use of an acetylene torch, the
members of the raiding party handcuffed them, dragged them outside and held
them for three hours inside a van while conducting the' search of the premises.
They thus argue that the shabu seized by the PDEA agents were inadmissible in
evidence.
■ SC
● In weighing the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses vis-a-vis that of the
defense, the former is more worthy of credit. Both IO1 Pagaragan and SI2 Esteban
clearly narrated how the search on the house of accused-appellants was conducted.
● As aptly noted by the trial court and concurred in by the appellate court, there were
actually two phases of the search done in the house of accused-appellants. The first
or initial search was done at the ground floor of the house, immediately after the
PDEA agents gained entry.
● It has been sufficiently shown by the prosecution that accused-appellants were
present when their house was searched. The pictures taken during the marking and
inventory and showing the accused-appellants in their house are clear proof that they
were present when their house was searched and the illegal drugs found were seized.
It was only after the marking of the drugs and while the PDEA agents waited for the
barangay officials to arrive that accused-appellants were made to board the van. This
explains the testimony of Kagawad Edwin Razon that accused-appellants were not
inside their house when he arrived. After the barangay officials arrived, accused-
appellants were brought back to the house for the continuation of the search of the
upper floors but they found no additional contrabands. They then went back to the
ground floor to conduct inventory of the seized items.
● 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.

● ISSUE 2: WON the requirements by the chain of custody were properly met -- YES
○ Jerry and Patricia’s claim
■ The chain of custody rule has not been complied with when no inventory or acknowledgment
receipt signed by Atty. Gaspe was submitted in evidence and that no evidence was shown as
to the condition of the specimen upon its presentation to Atty. Gaspe, who was not presented
in court to explain the discrepancy.
○ SC
■ 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.

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered,
for proper disposition in the following manner:

(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[.]

▪ 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.

● ISSUE 3: WON the prosecution was able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt -- YES
○ DISCREPANCIES IN THE TESTIMONIES ARE NOT NOTEWORTHY.
■ Jerry and Patricia
● There were supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses such as
whether barangay officials were present at the time of the conduct of the search.
■ SC
● Discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor
details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair
their credibility. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on
important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. In fact, such
minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the witnesses' credibility as they
negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed.
● In this case, the inconsistencies pertain to minor details and are so inconsequential
that they do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor detract from the established
fact of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
● The testimonies of the police officers who caught accused-appellants in flagrante
delicto in possession of illegal drugs during the conduct of a valid search are usually
credited with more weight and credence, in the absence of evidence that they have
been inspired by an improper or ill motive. Here, there is no proof of any ill motive
or odious intent on the part of the police officers to impute such a serious crime to
accused-appellants.

○ ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME WERE PRESENT.

■ 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.

DISPOSITIVE
● Appeal dismissed
● CA decision affirmed
 PEOPLE V. POSADA
BRION, J | September 2, 2015
Topic 1: Searches and Seizures > Particularity of Description
Topic 2: Rights of the Accused > Custodial Investigation
Nature: Resolution of appeal of accused-appellants

PARTIES:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs . JOCELYN POSADA y
SONTILLANO and FRANCISCO POSADA y URBANO, appellants.

DISPUTED MATTER:
Finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

FACTS:
● January 13, 2009: RTC found accused-appellant Jocelyn guilty of illegal possession of
2.2825 grams and accused-appellant Francisco guilty of illegal possession of 24.2313
grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu.
● RTC held that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. It also found the search warrant, which led to the
immediate arrest of accused-appellants, valid and the chain of custody of the seized
items preserved.
● RTC sentenced accused-appellant Jocelyn to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 10
years and 1 day, as minimum, to 14 years, as maximum; and sentenced accused-
appellant Francisco to suffer life imprisonment. It also ordered them to pay fines of
P300,000.00 and P400,000.00, respectively.
● On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision with the modification that accused-
appellant Jocelyn is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1
day, as minimum, to 14 years, as maximum.
● CA added that any question on the validity of the search warrant was closed in a
Resolution, in which the RTC denied accused-appellants' Motion to Quash Search
Warrant.
● CA further ruled that the certification signed by accused-appellant Jocelyn was not a
confession but an acknowledgment of the fact that the police had conducted a
search of their premises by virtue of the search warrant; that the search was
conducted in an orderly manner; and that the search was conducted in her presence
and in the presence of Kagawad Jena Arcilla.
● October 27, 2010: Accused-appellants filed their notice of appeal following the Decision
on the ground that it was contrary to facts, law, and applicable jurisprudence.
ISSUES/HELD:
● Whether the search warrant was valid? - YES.
Judicial finding of probable cause in issuing a search warrant should not be doubted
when the judge personally examines the applicant and/or witnesses and there is no
basis to doubt his reliability and competence in evaluating the evidence before him.
With regard to the designation of the place to be searched, the RTC sufficiently justified
that the search warrant particularly described the place to be searched: a sketch
showing the location of the house to be searched was attached to the application and the
search warrant pointed to only one house in the area.
LONG STANDING RULE: A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place
intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or
description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all
others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional
requirement.

● Whether the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were established. - YES.
For the successful prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs the following
essential elements must be established: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or
object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.
The prosecution was able to establish the presence of all the required elements for
violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Presented evidence showed the following events:
Early in the morning, police officers went to the house of the accused-appellants in Virac,
Catanduanes, to implement a search warrant.
After the search warrant was read, accused-appellant Francisco argued with the police officers
though later insisted that he be allowed to have breakfast before anything else.
While one of the police officers and the kagawad were escorting him to the nearby eatery, they saw
him throw something on the pavement. The police officer reprimanded accused-appellant
Francisco while the kagawad picked up the plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance.
A total of 37 sachets were recovered from the pavement which were photographed by another
police officer and then were turned over to the crime laboratory for inventory, documentation, and
examination. The results of the examination of the contents of the 37 plastic sachets done in the
crime laboratory showed that these contained shabu.
Thereafter, the kagawad and accused-appellant Jocelyn accompanied the police officers to the
place designated in the search warrant. While searching the kitchen, a policer officer came upon a
plastic bag of charcoal near the stove. He examined its contents and found a matchbox hidden
between the pieces of charcoal. Inside the matchbox were 5 heat-sealed plastic transparent
sachets containing a white crystalline substance. Another police officer photographed the plastic
sachets and then turned these over for inventory and documentation. Upon examination of the
contents of the 5 plastic sachets in the crime laboratory, the forensic chemist found that they
likewise contained shabu. When accused-appellant Jocelyn was asked during trial about the picture
showing the location of the charcoal stove, she categorically declared that it was "charcoal and the
 place where I place the charcoal." Thus, the RTC correctly appreciated the admission that she had
control over this item.

It is clear that accused-appellants knowingly possessed a prohibited drug without

legal authority to do so in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

● Whether the Chain of Custody was preserved. - YES.

The chain of custody over the 42 plastic sachets of shabu was not broken.
It is settled that the failure to strictly follow the directives of Section 21, Article II of
RA Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not necessarily render the items
confiscated inadmissible. What is important is that the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are preserved. The succession of events in this case show
that the items seized were the same items tested and subsequently identified and testified
to in court.
Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from the accused-appellants
were duly proven not to have been compromised.

● Whether the signing of the Certification of Orderly Search by the accused-appellant was
an extrajudicial confession. - NO.
When accused-appellant Jocelyn signed the Certificate of Orderly Search, she did not
confess her guilt to the crime charged. She merely admitted to the fact that a lawful
search was conducted while she was in the same premises.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the September 30, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C.
No. 03768 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

CASE TITLE People v. Sorin |Shey|

FULL CASE NAME PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CHARLIE SORIN y TAGAYLO,
accused-appellant.

DOCKET NO. & DATE G.R. No. 212635. March 25, 2015

PONENTE PERLAS-BERNABE, J

TOPIC Searches and Seizures: Admissibility of Illegally Seized Evidence

DOCTRINE CHAIN OF CUSTODY: It is well-settled that in criminal prosecutions involving illegal

drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime
calls for the necessity of proving with moral certainty that they are the same seized
items.

SYNOPSIS Charlie Sorin was charged of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) after being allegedly caught in flagrante delicto in a
buy-bust/entrapment operation. Sorin, however, claims that the police in El Salvador
 Misamis Oriental merely planted “shabu” to frame him up. The RTC and the CA both
convicted Sorin. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the CA and pointed out
the faulty “chain of custody” in the handling and marking of illegal drugs allegedly
seized from Sorin.

Facts:

1. On November 2, 2005, the Philippine National Police (PNP) intelligence section chief of
El Salvador, Misamis Oriental received a report that Sorin was selling illegal drugs at his
residence in Barangay Amoros, El Salvador, Misamis Oriental.
2. On October 25, 2005 (yeap, before the intel report), a test-buy was conducted by the
PNP where Sorin sold illegal drugs to a civilian asset. As a result, Police Chief Inspector
Rolindo Soguillon (PCI Soguillon) formed a buy-bust team composed of PO2 Edgardo
Dador (PO2 Dador) and PO1 Sonny Adams Cambangay (PO1 Cambangay), as poseur-
buyers, and PO3 Edilberto Estrada, SPO1 Graciano Mugot, Jr. (SPO1 Mugot), SPO1
Samuel Madjos, and SPO2 Elias Villarte, as back-up team. The poseur-buyers were
provided with four (4) P100 bills as marked money.
3. At around 7:30 in the evening (Nov 2), the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area.
PO2 Dador and PO1 Cambangay approached Sorin's residence, knocked on the door,
and were eventually let in. They asked if they could buy shabu, and Sorin responded
that each sachet costs P200.00.
a. PO2 Dador offered to purchase two (2) sachets. After examining said sachets,
each containing white crystalline substance, PO2 Dador gave Sorin the P400.00
marked money.
b. PO2 Dador then tapped Sorin on the shoulder, brought him outside the house
where he and the rest of the buy-bust team introduced themselves as police
officers, and arrested Sorin. The latter was then brought to the police station.
4. At the police station, PO2 Dador turned over the seized items and the marked money to
SPO1 Mugot, who marked the same, prepared the inventory and request for laboratory
examination, and sent the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
5. The PNP Crime Laboratory tested the following items: (a) the sachets seized from Sorin
during the buy-bust operation for the presence of illegal drugs; (b) Sorin's hands and the
marked money used to purchase the aforementioned illegal drugs for ultraviolet
fluorescent powder; and (c) Sorin's urine for the presence of illegal drugs.
6. The seized sachets tested positive for shabu, while Sorin's hands and the marked
money used contained traces of ultraviolet fluorescent powder. Also, Sorin's urine tested
positive for the presence of shabu.
7. Sorin claimed that the sachets of shabu were planted by the police officers, and that no
buy-bust operation occurred on November 2, 2005.
 a. Sorin maintained that on the alleged date of the buy-bust operation, while he
was resting at his residence with his wife and three children, he heard someone
calling from outside but ignored it.
b. Afterwards, PO2 Dador and PO1 Cambangay barged in by forcibly opening the
door to his house, handcuffed him, and then searched his house without a
warrant.
c. Thereafter, Sorin was brought to the police station where he was photographed
with the shabu supposedly seized from his residence. He was also compelled
to sign a document which turned out to be a waiver consenting to the test on
his urine for traces of drugs.
d. Sorin further stated that PCI Soguillon promised to release him after taking his
picture, but he was brought instead to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office where
he was charged of selling shabu.
8. During trial, the defense presented the testimonies of Rhiza Jane A. Lopez (Lopez) and
Enriquita De Paira (De Paira) to corroborate Sorin's assertions.
a. Lopez testified that she (upon the request of Sorin's wife and with the use of
her mobile phone) photographed the door of Sorin's residence, which she
claimed was destroyed.
b. De Paira testified that on the evening of November 2, 2005, she passed by
Sorin's residence and saw two persons kicking the door of the latter's house
and after destroying the same, gained entry therein. She then heard Sorin's wife
and children scream. After several minutes, the two (2) persons with Sorin left
and boarded a van.
9. On August 3, 2011, the RTC found Sorin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and
accordingly, sentenced him to Life Imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine in the
amount of P500,000.00.
a. The RTC gave credence to the straightforward and categorical testimonies of
the police officers that a buy-bust operation took place where the seized items
and the marked money were recovered and marked, and that when the seized
sachets were transmitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory, the same tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
b. Sorin's hands and the marked money similarly tested positive for ultraviolet
fluorescent powder.
c. The RTC also declared that the prosecution was able to account for every link
in the chain of custody of the seized items.
d. Conversely, it gave no weight to the testimony of Sorin, who merely denied the
existence of the buy-bust operation, and those of his two (2) witnesses which
did not refute its occurrence.
e. The RTC declared the results of the laboratory examination of Sorin's urine
inadmissible as evidence, considering that his consent to the examination was
 obtained without the assistance of counsel. Consequently, Sorin was acquitted
of the charge of violating Section 15, Article II of RA 9165.
10. In a Decision 22 dated February 27, 2014, the CA affirmed Sorin's conviction in toto.
a. It agreed with the RTC's finding that a valid buy-bust operation, resulting in the
seizure of two (2) sachets containing shabu, had occurred, and that,
notwithstanding the police officers' lapses in complying with the procedure
enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the identity and integrity of the
corpus delicti, or the seized drug itself, were nevertheless preserved.
b. The CA opined that Sorin failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties enjoyed by the
police officers involved in the buy-bust operation.

Issue/Held/Ratio

1. Was the “chain of custody” rule duly complied with? NO

a. The Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the
substance allegedly confiscated from Sorin due to unjustified gaps in the
chain of custody, thus warranting his acquittal.
b. Records bear out that PO2 Dador, i.e., the apprehending officer who seized the
sachets from Sorin during the buy-bust operation conducted on November 2,
2005, failed to mark the same and, instead, turned them over unmarked to
SPO1 Mugot who was the one who conducted the marking; prepared the
request for laboratory examination of the seized sachets, Sorin's urine, and the
marked money; delivered the said request, together with the seized sachets and
marked money, to the PNP Crime Laboratory; and later received the
examination results. PO2 Dador had, in fact, admitted that the sachets he
seized from Sorin were not even marked in his presence.
c. At the police station, PO2 Dador handed to SPO1 Mugot the two sachets of
shabu and the marked money used during the transaction. SPO1 Mugot stated
that he did not mark the sachets seized from Sorin. He marked, instead, the
"transparent plastic cellophane" wherein he placed the seized sachets
d. If at the first or earliest reasonably available opportunity, the apprehending
team did not mark the seized items, then there was nothing to identify it later
on as it passed from hand to hand. Due to the procedural lapse in the first
link of the chain of custody, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification
of the shabu that the prosecution introduced into evidence.
e. We are not unaware that the seized plastic sachet already bore the markings
"BC 02-01-04" when it was examined by Forensic Chemist Jabonillo. In the
absence, however, of specifics on how, when and where this marking was done
and who witnessed the marking procedure, we cannot accept this marking as
compliance with the required chain of custody requirement.
 f. It is not enough that the seized drug be marked; the marking must likewise
be made in the presence of the apprehended violator. As earlier stated, the
police did not at any time ever hint that they marked the seized drug.
g. It is well-settled that in criminal prosecutions involving illegal drugs, the
presentation of the drugs which constitute the corpus delicti of the crime
calls for the necessity of proving with moral certainty that they are the same
seized items. The lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly
seized from the accused strongly militates against a finding of guilt, as in this
case. Therefore, as reasonable doubt persists on the identity of the drugs
allegedly seized from the accused, the latter's acquittal should come as a matter
of course.

Chain of Custody

Jurisprudence: People v. Procedural Mechanics XPNS

Cervantes

As a mode of Section 21, 32 Article II Section 21 of the

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. In context, this
would ideally include
testimony about every
link in the chain, from
the seizure of the
prohibited drug up to
the time it is offered
into evidence, in such a
way that everyone who
touched the exhibit
would describe how
and from whom it was
received, where it was
and what happened to
of RA 9165 requires
that: (a) the
apprehending team
that has initial custody
over the seized drugs
immediately conduct an
inventory and take
photographs of the
same in the presence of
the accused or the
person from whom
such items were seized,
or the accused's or the
person's representative
or counsel, a
representative from the
media, the Department
of Justice, and any
elected public official
who shall then sign the
copies of the inventory;
and (b) the seized
drugs be turned over to
the PNP Crime
Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR)
of RA 9165 33 as well
as jurisprudence,
nevertheless provides
that non-compliance
with the requirements
of this rule will not
automatically render
the seizure and custody
of the items void and
invalid, so long as: (a)
there is a justifiable
ground for such non-
compliance; and (b) the
evidentiary value of the
seized items are
properly preserved.
Hence, any deviation
from the prescribed
procedure must be
justified, but, at all
times, should not affect
the integrity and
 it while in the witness' Laboratory within 24 evidentiary value of the
possession, the hours from its confiscated items.
condition in which it confiscation for
was received, and the examination purposes.
condition in which it
was delivered to the
next link in the chain. . .
..

The chain of custody

requirement "ensures
that unnecessary
doubts respecting the
identity of the evidence
are minimized if not
altogether removed."

Dispositive:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 27, 2014 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00953-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly,
accused-appellant Charlie Sorin y Tagaylo is ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause
his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held for any other reason.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Bersamin and Perez, JJ., concur.

CASE TITLE Tionco (Telle)

FULL CASE NAME ALEX TIONCO y ORTEGA, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent

DOCKET NO. & DATE G.R. No. 192284. March 11, 2015

PONENTE DEL CASTILLO, J

TOPIC Search and Seizures

DOCTRINE
SYNOPSIS Alex Tionco was arrested by two police officers after being caught in flagrante delicto
of possessing a sachet of shabu out in the streets of Manila in broad daylight. Tionco
pleaded not guilty, told his version of truth, and denied the antecedents as described
by the prosecution. RTC and CA convicted Tionco. On appeal to the CA, Tionco
invokes the inadmissibility of the confiscated shabu for prosecution’s failure to follow
the chain of custody rule. HELD: RTC and CA decisions affirmed. Elements of the crime
were present and well established. Tionco’s assertions re inadmissibility of evidence
are untenable. The defense did not question the admissibility of the seized item as
evidence during trial, but only raised it on appeal to the CA. Besides, while there was
indeed no physical inventory conducted and no photograph of the seized item was
taken, the Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the arresting
officers to strictly comply with the law is not fatal and will not render an accused's
arrest 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."

FACTS
1. In an Amended Information dated September 4, 2002, petitioner was charged with violation of
Section 11 (3), Article II of R.A. 9165, for having in his possession and under his custody and
control white crystalline substance known as shabu placed in one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet weighing 0.074 gram of shabu
2. Prosecution’s Version:
a. At around 3:45PM of July 24, 2002, PO1 Joel G. Sta. Maria and PO1 Fernando Reyes were
conducting an anti-criminality patrol in Parola Compound, Tondo, Manila.
b. From a distance of about three meters, they saw petitioner holding and examining a plastic
sachet with white crystalline substance believed to be shabu.
c. They approached petitioner and after ascertaining the contents of the plastic sachet,
confiscated the same.
d. Petitioner was arrested, told of his alleged violation, and apprised of his constitutional
rights.
e. Thereupon, petitioner and the confiscated plastic sachet were brought to the police station
where the seized item was marked by PO1 Sta. Maria with petitioner's initials "ATO"
before turning it over to PO1 Garcia for investigation and disposition. PO1 Garcia prepared
a letter request for the examination of the substance found inside the plastic sachet by the
WPD Crime Laboratory. Together with PO1 Sta. Maria, PO1 Garcia then brought the
seized item to the crime laboratory, which after examination by P/Insp. Macapagal, was
found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
3. Version of the Defense:
a. In the morning of July 24, 2002, he was sitting in front of his uncle's house when policemen
approached and arrested him. When he asked them why he was being arrested, he was
merely told to follow their instructions.
 b. He was brought to Police Station 2 where he was frisked but nothing illegal was found on
him. He was detained after being informed that he violated the law pertaining to drugs.
c. PO1 Sta. Maria demanded P6,000.00 from him in exchange for his release but no money
was forthcoming.
4. LOWER COURT RULINGS
a. RTC: convicted petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 15
years and to pay a fine of P300,000.00
b. CA: Affirmed RTC decision. CA found the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drug
present in the case. Moreover, it accorded the police ocers the presumption of regularity
in the performance of their duties.
ISSUE/HELD
1. WON the CA erred in giving full weight and credence to the prosecution’s evidence
notwithstanding the apprehending team’s failure to prove the integrity and identity of the
alleged confiscated shabu. -- NO
2. WON the CA erred in affirming the petitioner’s conviction despite irregularities the
apprehending officers’ performance of their official duties -- NO
RATIO
1. The prosecution was able to establish through testimonial, documentary and object evidence
the elements of the crime.
○ The circumstances from when he was seen by the police officers up to his eventual arrest
were aptly narrated by PO1 Sta. Maria in a direct and consistent manner.
○ In open court, the same witness positively identified petitioner as the person holding the
plastic sachet. He also identified the plastic sachet marked "ATO" as the same item
confiscated from petitioner.
○ There is nothing on record to show that petitioner was legally authorized to possess the
same. And having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facie evidence that
petitioner freely and consciously possessed the drug, which he failed to rebut.
2. Petitioner's contention that it is highly improbable and contrary to human experience that he would
hold and examine the subject plastic sachet with people around and in broad daylight is both
unpersuasive and irrelevant.
○ Drug pushers sell to their customers anytime and anywhere
○ What matters is not the time or place where the violation was committed but the acts
○ constituting the violation of the dangerous drug law
3. Petitioner’s assertion that there was failure on the part of the police officers to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item as no physical inventory thereof was conducted,
or photograph of it taken, immediately upon seizure, in violation of the procedures provided by
law, is untenable.
○ The defense did not question the admissibility of the seized item as evidence during
trial. It was only during the appeal to the CA that he questioned the same.
○ Settled is the rule that no question will be entertained on appeal unless it had been raised
in the court below as enunciated in People v. Sta. Maria.
 ○ Besides, while there was indeed no physical inventory conducted and no photograph
of the seized item was taken, the Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure
of the arresting officers to strictly comply with the law is not fatal and will not render
an accused's arrest 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."
○ Here, after petitioner was arrested and the suspected shabu was confiscated from him by
PO1 Sta. Maria, the latter immediately brought the item to the police station where he
marked the plastic sachet with petitioner's initials "ATO," and turned it over to the
investigator PO1 Garcia. The latter, together with PO1 Sta. Maria, then forwarded the said
plastic sachet marked with "ATO" and the letter request for laboratory examination to the
WPD Crime Laboratory. Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Macapagal personally received the same
from PO1 Garcia and after conducting qualitative examination on the contents thereof,
found the same to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. When the
prosecution presented as evidence in court the plastic sachet marked with "ATO," PO1
Sta. Maria in no uncertain terms positively identified it as the one he confiscated from
petitioner.
○ It is therefore beyond cavil that the chain of custody of the seized item was shown to
not have been broken, and, hence, its integrity and evidentiary value properly
preserved.
4. Finally, the CA correctly rejected petitioner's defenses of denial and extortion for being self-serving
and uncorroborated by strong and convincing evidence. Such line of defense must fail in light of
the positive testimony of the prosecution witness identifying petitioner as the unlawful possessor
of the subject shabu.

DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The assailed January 21, 2010 Decision
and May 13, 2010 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31924 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

CASE TITLE Mercado

FULL CASE NAME

DOCKET NO. & DATE

PONENTE

TOPIC
DOCTRINE

SYNOPSIS

(Please see Arnel’s class digest)

CASE TITLE Chi Chan Liu

FULL CASE NAME

DOCKET NO. & DATE

PONENTE

TOPIC

DOCTRINE

SYNOPSIS

CASE TITLE Alcaraz

FULL CASE NAME

DOCKET NO. & DATE

PONENTE

TOPIC

DOCTRINE

SYNOPSIS
 CASE TITLE Celedonio v People

FULL CASE NAME EDUARDO CELEDONIO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

DOCKET NO. & DATE G.R. No. 209137, July 01, 2015

PONENTE MENDOZA, J.:

TOPIC Search & Seizure

DOCTRINE

SYNOPSIS

NATURE petition for review on certiorari

FACTS
● April 25, 2007, Eduardo Celedonio was charged with the crime of Robbery with Force Upon
Things
● Findings of RTC:
○ April 22, 2007, Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila, Philippines
■ Eduardo Celedonio entered the house of the herein complainant Carmencita De Guzman
(De Guzman) by destroying the backdoor of said house, and once inside, took, robbed and
carried away the following w/ the total amount of Php 223,000.00:
● (1) one gold bracelet 24K Php8,000.00 ● (2) two gold ring worth Php8,000.00
● (3) necklace (1) one 24K and (2) two 18K ● (1) one wedding ring worth 14K worth
Php42,000.00 Php1,500.00
● (2) two digicam Sony player ● (1) one wrist watch swiss military worth
Php22,000.00 Php10,000.00
● (1) one DVD portable Php5,000.00 ● (1) one cellphone NOKIA 8250 worth
● (1) one wrist watch Tagheur Php3,000.00
Php30,000.00 ● (3) three pairs of earrings worth
● (1) one sun glass Guess P Php5,000.00 Php15,000.00
● (1) one camera Canon Php2,500.00 ● (3) three pcs. of 100.00 US dollars worth
● (1) one Gameboy advance Php5,000.00 Php15,000.00
● (1) one calculator Php1,500.00 ● (60) sixty pcs. of Php50.00 bills worth
● (1) one discman Sony Php3,000.00 Php3,000.00
● (2) two pcs. 100.00 US dollar bills ● (100) one hundred pcs. of Php20.00 bills
● (22) twenty two pcs. Php500.00 bills worth Php2,000.00
● (2) two necklace 18K worth ● (15) fifteen pcs. of Php100.00 bills worth
Php30,000.00 Php1,500.00
● (2) two bracelet worth Php11,500.00

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
 PROSECUTION DEFENSE/ ACCUSED

On the evening of April 21, 2007, a certain Adriano After the prosecution rested its case, Celedonio filed his
Marquez (Marquez) witnessed the robbery perpetrated Demurrer to Evidence (with leave of court) citing as his ground
in the house of Carmencita De Guzman (De Guzman) the alleged illegality of his arrest and the illegal search on his
while she was away to attend to the wake of her motorcycle. The RTC denied the demurrer, stating that the
deceased husband. No one was left in the house. question of the legality of Celedonio's arrest had been mooted
Marquez, whose house was opposite the house of De by his arraignment and his active participation in the trial of
Guzman and Celedonio, which were adjacent to each the case. It considered the seizure of the stolen items as legal
other, identified Celedonio as the culprit. Upon learning not only because of Celedonio's apparent consent to it, but
of the incident, De Guzman reported it to the police and also because the subject items were in a moving vehicle.
requested that Celedomo be investigated for possibly
having committed the crime, based on the account of In his defense, Celedonio claimed that he was at home with
Marquez. his wife, sleeping, at the time of the incident. His wife
corroborated his statement.
Later, a follow-up operation was conducted by PO1
Rommel Roque (PO1 Roque) and SPO2 Adrian Sugui
(SPO2 Sugui), accompanied by Marquez. They
proceeded to Raja Humabon St., Navotas, to survey the
area for the possible identification and apprehension of
the suspect. On their way, Marquez pointed to a man
on a motorcycle and said, "Sir, siya po si Eduardo
Celedonio." The police immediately flagged down
Celedonio. PO1 Roque asked him if he was Eduardo
Celedonio, but he did not reply and just bowed his
head.

SPO2 Sugui informed Celedonio of a complaint for

robbery against him. Celedonio still remained silent and
just bowed his head. SPO2 Sugui asked him, "Where
are the stolen items?" Celedonio then alighted from his
motorcycle and opened its compartment where PO1
Roque saw some of the stolen items, as per report of
the incident, such as the portable DVD player and a
wristwatch, among others.

PO1 Roque asked Celedonio if the same were stolen,

to which the latter answered, "Iyan po."7 Thus,
Celedonio was arrested and was informed of his
constitutional rights. More items were seized from
Celedonio at the police station.

LOWER COURT RULING

RTC
 ● RTC found Celedonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Force Upon
Things
● The trial court was convinced that the prosecution clearly established that:
○ 1) a robbery had been committed;
○ 2) it was committed recently;
○ 3) several of the stolen items including cash were found in Celedonio's possession; and
○ 4) Celedonio had no valid explanation for his possession of the stolen goods.
CA
● Celedonio appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred:
○ 1) in convicting him of the crime despite the insufficiency of the circumstantial evidence;
○ 2) in not finding that the search was illegal, rendering the articles recovered inadmissible;
○ 3) in not finding that the prosecution witness Marquez was ill-motivated in testifying against him.
● Ruling: affirmed the RTC’s decision in toto.
● CA brushed aside Celedonio's argument that he was illegally arrested and that the items seized
should be excluded as evidence.
○ CA stressed that Celedonio was not arrested when he voluntarily opened the compartment of his
motorcycle. He was only brought to the police for investigation after some of the stolen items were
found in his motorcycle compartment.
○ Further, Celedonio's failure to raise the issue before his arraignment constituted a waiver on his
part to question the legality of his arrest.
● Celedonio moved for reconsideration, but was denied.

ISSUES/RATIO/HELD

ISSUE DEFENSE SUPREME COURT

WON CA erred in affirming the First, Celedonio was, in fact, caught in

RTC’s ruling that the petitioner’s exclusive possession of some of the
guilt was proven based on stolen items when the police officers
circumstantial evidence - NO flagged down his motorcycle during their
follow-up operation. He failed to give a
reasonable explanation as to his
possession of the said items. Section 3(j),
Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides that a person found in
possession of a thing taken in the doing
of a recent wrongful act is the taker and
the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that
thing which a person possesses, or
exercises acts of ownership over, is
owned by him.

Celedonio never claimed ownership of


WON CA erred in not finding
that the search conducted on
the petitioner was illegal,
rendering the articles recovered
inadmissible - NO
WON CA erred in not finding
that the prosecution witness
Adriano Marquez was ill-
motivated in testifying against
the petitioner - NO
the subject items. When the alleged
stolen items were found in his motorcycle
compartment which he had control over,
the disputable presumption of being the
taker of the stolen items arose. He could
have overcome the presumption, but he
failed to give a justifiable and logical
explanation. Thus, the only plausible
scenario that could be inferred therefrom
was that he took the items.
Second, no illegal search was made upon
Celedonio. When the police officers
asked where the stolen items were, they
merely made a general inquiry, and not a
search, as part of their follow-up
operation. Records did not show that the
police officers even had the slightest hint
that the stolen items were in Celedonio's
motorcycle compartment. Neither was
there any showing that the police officers
frisked Celedonio or rummaged over his
motorcycle. There was no showing either
of any force or intimidation on the part of
the police officers when they made the
inquiry. Celedonio himself voluntarily
opened his motorcycle compartment.
Worse, when he was asked if the items
were the stolen ones, he actually
confirmed it. The police officers,
therefore, were left without any recourse
but to take him into custody for further
investigation. At that instance, the police
officers had probable cause that he could
be the culprit of the robbery. He did not
have any explanation as to how he got
hold of the items. Moreover, taking into
consideration that the stolen items were
in a moving vehicle, the police had to
immediately act on it.
Third, contrary to Celedonio's argument,
Marquez was a credible witness.
Jurisprudence also tells us that where
there is no evidence that the witnesses of
the prosecution were actuated by ill
motive, it is presumed that they were not
 so actuated and their testimony is
entitled to full faith and credit.

In this case, if only to discredit Marquez,

Celedonio claimed that they once had a
fight over a water meter. As correctly
observed by the CA, however, such
allegation was too insignificant that it
could not destroy whatever credibility
Marquez possessed as a witness. CA
argued that:

Alibi and denial were the only defenses

of Celedonio. Unless he can strongly
support his claims that the items were
"planted" and that it was physically
impossible for him to be in De Guzman's
house other than the mere averment that
he was asleep at the time, his defenses
cannot prevail over the strong
circumstantial evidence.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. SO ORDERED.