610 SCRA 222, January 15, 2010, 2nd Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EDGARDO ESTRADA,

APPELLANT.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS: On November 19, 1997, two similarly-worded Informations were filed

against Edgardo Estrada charging him with two counts of Rape committed
against his 12 year old niece. During trial, AAA, the victim was presented as
the first witness and she testified that her uncle raped her in two separate
occasions.

Estrada admitted that AAA is his niece but he denied the accusation. The
defense witness was Irene who is AAA’s grandmother and Estrada’s mother.
She narrated that although "AAA" used to live in her house, she was not aware
of any rape incident having been committed thereat. She admitted though that
she loved her son more than she loved her granddaughter.

RTC: found Estrada guilty of two counts of qualified rape (it appreciated the
qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship)

C.A.: found Estrada guilty of two counts of simple rape (the information only
alleged that Estrada is the victim’s uncle and it did not specify that he is a
relative within the 3rd degree of affinity or consanguinity).

ISSUE: WON the accused is guilty of the crime of rape?

HELD: YES. Estrada’s guilty is established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the testimony of the victim
credible. According to the trial court, she "candidly, positively and categorically
testified as to her harrowing experiences". Thus, it was convinced that
appellant "indeed raped ‘AAA’". It also "keenly observed" that "‘AAA’ was
emotionally affected as she recalled the harrowing experiences she suffered
from her uncle as she had to wipe the tears from time to time as she testified".
Likewise, both courts brushed aside Irene’s corroborative account for being
incredible and partial.

There is no showing at all that the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or

misapplied facts or circumstances of weight which would have affected the
outcome of the case. We therefore defer and give highest respect to the findings
of the trial court because it is in the best position to assess and determine the
credibility of the witnesses. In addition, the Court of Appeals adopted the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of the victim. Hence, the more
reason for us not to disturb the said findings.
613 SCRA 291, Feb 18, 2010, 1st Division

People of the Philippines v Michael A. Hipona

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

FACTS: In June 2000, the victim AAA was raped, physically manhandled and
strangled, which eventually led to her death. Her belongings were missing.
During investigation, the mother of the accused (and also the victim’s sister)
declared that her son confessed to her that it was him along with his friends
who committed the crime. Based on information given by the accused Hipona’s
mother, Hipona was arrested by the police.A day after his arrest, Hipona, in an
interview which was broadcasted, when asked by a radio reporter Why did you
do it to your aunt?, answered Because of my friends and peers. When pressed if
he was intoxicated or was on drugs when he did it, appellant answered that he
did it because of his friends and of poverty.

RTC: found him guilty of Rape with Homicide (and Robbery). The trial court
admitted Hipona’s confession to the media.

C.A: sustained his conviction

ISSUE: WON the trial properly admitted in evidence the accused’

confession to the media?

HELD: YES. Not only does Hipona’s conviction rest on an unbroken

chain of circumstantial evidence. It rests also on his unbridled admission
to the media. The confessions were made in response to questions by
news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer. We
have held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news
reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are
admissible in evidence.)
613 SCRA 366, Feb. 22, 2010, 2nd Division

People of the Philippines Wilson Suan Y Jolongon

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS: On August 12, 2003, an Information was filed with the RTC of Lanao del
Norte, Branch 6 against appellant for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
According to the prosecution’s version as culled from its witnesses, Suan was
apprehended while he is in the act of selling a plastic sachet containing shabu to the
poseur buyer of the police. The buy-bust money and the plastic sachet containing
the stuff they recovered were turned over to the evidence custodian. The Forensic
Chemist then received the written request for laboratory examination and she
conducted the test and the result showed that it contained methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.

RTC: found Suano guilty of the crime charged

C.A.: affirmed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE: WON the prosecution witnesses were able to properly identify the dangerous
drug taken from appellant?

HELD: NO. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity
of the substance recovered from the appellant. For while the drug may be admitted
in evidence it does not necessarily follow that the same should be given evidentiary
weight. It must be stressed that admissibility should not be equated with its
probative value in proving the corpus delicti.Records show that while the police
officers were able to prove the factuality of the buy-bust operation, the prosecution
dismally failed to prove the identity of the substance taken from appellant.

The apprehending officer made no mention that he placed some markings on

the sachet for purposes of future identification. However, in the Request for
Laboratory Examination, the item being subjected for laboratory examination was
already referred to as Exhibit A. Next, in the Memorandum of the Regional Chief of
PNP, the item that was referred to the Forensic Chemist already had other markings.
From the foregoing, there is already doubt as to the identity of the substance being
subjected for laboratory examination. At this time, we are no longer sure whether the
item allegedly seized from the appellant was the same item referred to by the
Provincial Chief and then the Regional Chief of PNP to the Forensic Chemist for
laboratory examination.
630 SCRA 42, September 7, 2010, EN BANC

LENIDO LUMANOG and AUGUSTO SANTOS v PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

FACTS: Appellants were accused of the ambush-slay of Colonel Rolando N.

Abadilla. The principal witness for the prosecution was Freddie Alejo, a
security guard near the place where the ambush-slay happened. As a
purported eyewitness, he testified on what he saw during the fateful day,
including the faces of the accused.

Appellants assail the out-of-court identification made by Alejo who pointed to

appellant Joel de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos in a line-up at the police
station together with police officers. However, appellants claim that the police
officers who joined the line-up were actually in their police uniforms at the
time, as to make the identification process suggestive and hence not valid, was
unsubstantiated.

ISSUE: WON the out-of-court identification of the accused-appellants made by

the eyewitness Alejo in a police line-up was reliable and admissible in
evidence?

HELD: YES. Examining the records, we find nothing irregular in the

identification made by Alejo at the police station for which he executed the
Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay during which he positively identified Joel
de Jesus and Lorenzo delos Santos as those lookouts who had pointed their
guns at him demanding that he buck down at his guardhouse. In any case, the
trial court did not rely solely on said out-of-court identification considering that
Alejo also positively identified appellants during the trial. Thus, even assuming
arguendo that Alejos out-of-court identification was tainted with irregularity,
his subsequent identification in court cured any flaw that may have attended
it. We have held that the inadmissibility of a police line-up identification should
not necessarily foreclose the admissibility of an independent in-court
identification.
754 SCRA 594, March 25, 2015, 1st Division

THE PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHARLIE SORIN y

TAGAYLO, Accused-Appellant.

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS: Sorin was charged before the RTC for violating Sections 5 and 15,
Article II of RA 9165. According to the prosecution, the PNP received a report
that Sorin was selling illegal drugs at his residence. They formed a buy-bust
team and the latter proceeded to the target area. They allegedly succeeded in
catching Sorin in the act of selling Shabu and he was later brought to the
police station. During trial, the prosecution presented the police officers as
witnesses who testified how the 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.

RTC: found Sorin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged

C.A.: affirmed Sorin’s conviction in toto

ISSUE: WON Sorin’s conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165

should be upheld?

HELD: No. The Court is unconvinced that the chain of custody rule had been
substantially complied with. Not only did the apprehending officer who had
initial custody over the seized drug fail to mark the same or even witness its
alleged marking, but also the officer to which the marking of the seized items
was attributed to, himself disclaimed that he had done such marking and
admitted that he only marked a transparent plastic cellophane container.
Thus, there is no gainsaying that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
corpus delicti had been compromised.

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.
680 SCRA 181, Sept. 5, 2012, 2nd Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CALEXTO DUQUE

FUNDALES, JR., Accused-Appellant.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

FACTS: Appellant was charged with violations of Section 5, 11 and 12 of Article

II, RA No. 9165. The trial court found him guilty for illegal sale of shabu and
dismissed the cases for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and for illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia, for insufficiency of evidence. On appeal, the
CA affirmed the trial court's decision.

Appellant argues that the prosecution's failure to present the forensic chemist
during trial was fatal to its cause and thus the prosecution failed to establish
the corpus delicti. He also avers that the prosecution failed to prove that the
police officers coordinated and reported the buy-bust operation with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

ISSUE: WON the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of

Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165?

HELD:YES. We have already ruled in a number of cases that non-presentation

of the forensic chemist in illegal drugs cases is an insufficient cause for
acquittal. Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the
laboratory analyst.

As to the second contention of the appellant, the court held that the failure of
the law enforcers to comply strictly with Section 21 was not fatal. It did not
render the appellant's arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him
inadmissible.The danger of abuse that the provision seeks to prevent is not
present. We see no reason why the non-participation of the PDEA would render
the arrest illegal and the evidence obtained therein inadmissible considering
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized prohibited substances and
dangerous drugs have been properly preserved.