Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 21

RA 9165 CASES THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

[G.R. No. 210454. January 13, 2016.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. RONALDO


CASACOP y AMIL, accused-appellant.

On appeal is the Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on 10 July 2013 in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 05055 affirming the conviction by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93 of appellant Ronaldo Casacop y Amil for violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.

FACTS:

(LONG STORY SHORT, THEY CONDUCTED A BUY-BUST OPERATION)

Acting on a tip from an informant that a certain Edong was selling shabu in Quezon Street, Barangay San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna, the Chief of
Police of San Pedro Police Station, Police Superintendent Sergio Dimandal formed a team to conduct surveillance on appellant. Upon receiving a
positive result, Senior Police Ofcer 4
Melchor Dela Pea (SPO4 Dela Pea) prepared a pre-operation report which was sent to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
SPO4 Dela Pea then formed a buy-bust team composed of Police Ofcer 1 Jifford Signap (PO1 Signap) as the poseur-buyer, SPO2 Diosdado
Fernandez, SPO1 Jorge Jacob and PO1 Rommel Bautista, as police backup.
Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. PO1 Signap and the informant approached appellant's house.
PO1 Signap was introduced to appellant by the informant as the buyer of shabu. He handed the marked money, consisting of three (3)P100.00 bills,
to appellant, who took a plastic sachet from his left pocket and gave it to him.
PO1 Signap made the pre-arranged signal of calling SPO4 Dela Pea. The backup team rushed towards appellant's house and arrested him. PO1
Signap frisked appellant and recovered an improvised glass tooter, aluminum foil strip, cigarette lighter, two (2) small heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets, and the marked money. PO1 Signap conducted a physical inventory of the seized items and correspondingly marked them in appellant's
house.
Thereafter, appellant was brought to the police station. Thereat, SPO4 Dela Pea prepared a certificate of inventory. A request letter was sent to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime laboratory for the examination of the seized items.
Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas issued Chemistry Report No. D-808-05 which confirmed the seized items as positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.
APPELLANTS SIDE: Appellant, for his part, denied the charges of possession of shabu and its paraphernalia and sale of shabu. Appellant testified that
he was urinating at the back of his house on 21 July 2005 at around 12:00 pm when ve (5) police ofcers barged into his house. After confirming
that he is Edong, appellant was handcuffed and brought to the police station. Appellant claimed that the police only planted evidence against him
because they were not able to pin him down in a robbery case.
RTC: the RTC rendered a Decision finding appellant guilty of all the charges against him. Finding accused Ronaldo Casacop y Amil guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 12, 11, 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002.
CA: appellate court affirmed in toto the judgment of the RTC.
APPELLANTS BRIEF ARGUED:
o Appellant asserts that the chain of custody of the object evidence was never established.
o Moreover, appellant claims that Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 was not complied with.

ISSUE: Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him.

HELD: GUILTY. Decision dated 10 July 2013 of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of appellant Ronaldo Casacop y Amil by the Regional Trial Court of
San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93, for violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED.

For the successful prosecution of a case for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be proven:
o (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and
o (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must concur:
o (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited drug;
o (2) such possession is not authorized by law;and
o (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
In this case, all the elements for the illegal sale of shabu were established. PO1 Signap, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the
person who sold him the white crystalline substance in one plastic sachet which was later proven to be positive for shabu. In exchange for this plastic
sachet, PO1 Signap handed the marked money as payment. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the
marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.
All the elements in the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and paraphernalia were likewise established. Found in appellant's
pocket after he was caught in flagrante were two (2) more plastic sachets containing shabu, an improvised glass tooter containing shabu residue and
the rolled aluminum foil with shabu residue.
Under Rule 126, Section 13, a person lawfully arrested may be searched for anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a warrant. There was no showing that appellant had legal authority to possess the shabu and its paraphernalia.
Moreover, the fact that these contraband were found in his physical possession shows that he freely and consciously possessed them.
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. 9165,
the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY & MARKING OF EVEIDENCE (SEC 21. Preservation of the integrity of evidence)

Records show that PO1 Signap recovered from appellant three (3) plastic sachets of shabu, a glass tooter and aluminum foil. These items were
marked and inventoried in the house of appellant and in his presence. Thereafter, these seized items were brought to the police station where a
request for qualitative examination was made. SPO4 Dela Pea signed the request and it was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Police Senior
Inspector and Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas conducted the examination. Thus, the chain of custody was clearly accounted for.
At the said station, SPO4 Dela Pea prepared a Certication of Inventory as to the items seized from appellant. The said certication was signed by
one representative from the media by the name of Edward Pelayo. A Booking Sheet/Arrest Report was issued to appellant and a letter request
wassent to the PNP, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City, Crime Laboratory Ofce for examination of the seized plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance.
As the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items to establish the corpus delicti were proven, substantial compliance with
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 will suffice.

SECTION 5: (SELL, TRADE. ADMINISTER)


Under Section 5, Article II of R.A.No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to death and ne ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch
in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved. For the
crime of illegal sale of shabu, appellant was properly sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a ne of P500,000.00.

SECTION 11: (ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PROHOBITED DRUGS LESS THAN 5 GRAMS)


Appellant was also caught in possession of 0.19 gram of shabu. The crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is punished under Section 11,
paragraph 2 (3),Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which provides an imprisonment of twelve (12) years andone (1) day to twenty (20) years and a ne
ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are
less than five (5) grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

SECTION 12: (POSSESSION OF PARAPHERNALIA)


Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides that the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a
ne ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who unless authorized
by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and any other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body.
[G.R. No. 215942. January 18, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. KUSAIN AMIN y AMPUAN, a.k.a. "Cocoy", accused-appellant.

This is an appeal assailing the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01179, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 40, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Case No. 2004-010. The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of
prohibited drugs under Section 5, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.

FACTS:

That on January 2, 2004, at 5:40 p.m. more or less, at Landless, Colrai, Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused without authority of law, did then and there wilfully and feloniously have in his possession custody and
control one (1) small heated-sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance locally known as shabu with a approx. weight of 0.09
gram valued to more or less P100 and sold it to a poseur-buyer of PNP-CDO for a consideration of P100.00 marked money one (1) pc one hundred
pesos bill with serial numberFA246643, well knowing it to be a dangerous drug.
RTC: Guilty. The prosecution having established all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of a dangerous drug, the Court hereby finds the accused,
Kusain Amin y Ampuan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 5, par. 1, Article II of R.A.9165.
RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses: Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Penel Ramas; and Senior Police Officers (SPOs) 2Ricky
Bagas, Jameson Alvior, Jr., and Benjamin Dacara (Ret.).
The trial court held that the prosecution had successfully proved the existence of all the essential elements of the crime, accused-appellant having
been "positively identified by the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation as the seller of the shabu presented in the case."
Likewise, the prosecution established that the "sale actually occurred and that one sachet of shabu was sold for the price of P100.00." P/Insp. Ramas
testified that he was about 10 to 15 meters away when the confidential informant/poseur-buyer handed the marked money to accused-appellant
in exchange for shabu. (important note, emphais supplied) After relying on the signal given by the poseur-buyer (i.e., removing his eyeglasses), they
proceeded to frisk accused-appellant and arrest him immediately. They were able to recover the marked money in the latter's possession.
RTC found that the identity of the dangerous drug was sufficiently proven because the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody, from
the time it was sold by accused-appellant to when it was presented in court.
SPO2Dacara testified that he had personally received the sachet of shabu from their poseur-buyer at the place of arrest and brought it to their office
later. After making the appropriate markings (the letter "A" and his initials) on the sachet, he turned it over toSPO2 Bagas for delivery to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.
SPO2 Alvior then identified the sachet as the same item that he had received on 3January 2004 from SPO3 Bagas at the PNP Crime Laboratory Office,
and that he later turned over to the examining forensic chemist, Police Senior Inspector (P/SI) April Garcia Carbajal.
The trial court gave scant consideration to the uncorroborated self-serving allegations of accused appellant that he had been framed.
CA: Affirmed in toto.
In convicting appellant of the crimes charged, the CA disregarded his position that there was no valid buy-bust operation, because the arresting team
had not coordinated the matter with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
The appellate court maintained that neither R.A. 9165 nor its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) required PDEA's participation in any buy-bust
operation. After all, a buy-bust is "just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court [sic] , which police
authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators x x x. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA."
On accused-appellant's contention that the prosecution's failure to present the poseur-buyer weakened the arresting team's testimonies, the CA held
that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction, as held in People v. Berdadero .
In any case, the testimonies of SPO2 Dacara and P/Insp. Ramas, who were both within clear seeing distance, "presented a complete picture, providing
every detail of the buy-bust operation."
Finally, as regards the failure of the police officers to immediately mark the alleged shabu at the crime scene (but only at the police station), the CA
ruled that "failure to strictly comply with Section 21 (1), Article II of RA No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items
seized or confiscated from him inadmissible." It further emphasized that "[w]hat is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses sufficient to warrant appellant's conviction for
the crimes charged.

HELD: The court Reverses and Sets Aside the decision of the Court of Appeals in affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The accused was acquitted
on the ground of reasonable doubt.

While prior coordination with the PDEA is not necessary to make a buy-bust operation valid, we are constrained to reverse the findings of the CA
because the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal to the cause of the prosecution.
In People v. Andaya, the importance of presenting the poseur-buyer's testimony before the trial court was underscored by the Court.
In the same case, we emphasized that "[t]here would have been no issue against [the buy-bust operation], except that none of the members of the
buy-bust team had directly witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur buyer due to their being positioned at a distance from
the poseur buyer and Andaya at the moment of the supposed transaction." It was even noted in that case that the "members of the buy-bust team
arrested Andaya on the basis of the pre-arranged signal from the poseur-buyer."
While there is a "need to hide [the poseur-buyers] identities and preserve their invaluable service to the police," this consideration cannot be
applied to this case, because, as in Andaya, the "poseur-buyer and the confidential informant were one and the same.(IMPORTANT) Without the
poseur buyer's testimony, the State did not credibly incriminate [the accused]."
In this case, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses SPO2 Bagas, SPO2 Alvior, Jr., SPO2 Dacara, and P/Insp. Ramas (who was 10 meters away)
cannot be considered as eyewitness accounts of the illegal sale. There was no indication that they directly saw an illegal drug being sold to the
poseur-buyer.
In People v. Guzon , we held that "the police officer, who admitted that he was seven (7) to eight (8) meters away from where the actual
transaction took place, could not be deemed an eyewitness to the crime."
This interpretation is premised on the legal reasoning that "when the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two (2) or more
explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not
fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction." (EQUIPOISE RULE)
[G.R. No. 219829. January 18, 2017.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MONIR JAAFAR y


TAMBUYONG, accused-appellant.

This reviews the Decision dated February 24, 2015 of the Court of Appeals inCA-G.R. CR HC No. 01053-MIN affirming the conviction of accused-appellant
MonirJaafar y Tambuyong for violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

FACTS:

8:00 a.m. on September 10, 2009, a male civilian informant reported to Chief of Police, Police Superintendent Alberto Capacio Larubis(Chief Larubis)
that a certain "Mana" was selling methamphetamine hydrochloride(shabu) at the port area barangay located just beside the police station. Mana
waslater identified as Jaafar, who sold shabu between 12:00 m.n. and 4:00 a.m. to facilitate the sale of the drug and evade arrest. Jaafar allegedly
peddled shabu in his house
Chief Larubis instructed SPO4 Enrico Morales (SPO4 Morales) to form a team composed of SPO3 Tabunyag, PO3 Perez, PO3 Hasim, PO2 Canete, PO2
Bobby Rey Bucoy (PO2 Bucoy), PO1 Insang, and PO1 Marlon Takazi M. Look (PO1 Look) and to schedule a buy-bust operation the next day. He also
instructed the team to coordinate with agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). PO1 Look was designated as the poseur-buyer
while PO2 Bucoy and PDEA Agent Mark Dela Cruz were designated as the arresting officers.
On September 11, 2009, the buy-bust team left the police station at 1:45 a.m. and went to Jaafar's house. Jafaar met PO1 Look and the informant at
the door of his house and asked them if they were buying shabu. PO1 Look answered in the affirmative and gave Jaafar a marked P500.00 bill. Jaafar
called for Gani inside the house. Gani came out and handed Jaafar a sachet containing shabu. Jaafar gave the sachet to PO1 Look, who immediately
lit a cigarette the pre-arranged signal agreed upon by the buy-bust team.
The police officers rushed to arrest Jaafar, but he managed to escape. Jaafar threw away the marked P500.00 bill as he ran. Eventually, the arresting
officers caught up with him 30 meters away from his house.
Immediately after the arrest, PO1 Look marked the confiscated sachet of shabu with his initials. He then turned over the sachet and the marked
P500.00 bill to their team leader, SPO4 Morales. The buy-bust team brought Jaafar and Gani to the police station for investigation
Chief Larubis prepared a letter-request addressed to forensic chemist Melvin Manuel for the examination of the contents of the sachet. Upon
examination, the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
In his defense, Gani testified that he was at an internet caf located near thepolice station at 2:00 a.m. on September 11, 2009. After stepping out of
the establishment, Gani was suddenly apprehended by unknown persons, who later identified themselves as PO1 Look and PO2 Bucoy. He was
detained at the police station for two (2) days and was subsequently transferred to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. Gani claimed that
he did not know the reason for his arrest. cTDaEH
Meanwhile, Jaafar testified that he was at the internet caf at 12:00 m.n. on September 11, 2009, watching people play video games. He left after
two (2) hours and made his way home. Upon entering an alley, Jaafar saw six (6) persons headed towards him. One of them pointed a gun at him
and told him not to run. Out of fear, he ran towards the main road. However, the six (6) persons, who turned out to be police officers, caught up with
him. They conducted a body search but found nothing since Jaafar was only wearing boxer shorts and a t-shirt. Jaafar was detained after his arrest
and brought to the Office of the City Prosecutor at the City Hall of Isabela the next day.
The Regional Trial Court found that the prosecution clearly established all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs. Although the chain of
custody rule was not strictly complied with, the trial court ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of The confiscated shabu sachet had been
duly preserved. It applied the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers.
RTC: In its Decision dated May 15, 2012, the Regional Trial Court convicted Jaafar for violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.
However, it acquitted Gani for insufficiency of evidence
Jaafar led an appeal before the Court of Appeals and raised the following errors: (1) the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt; and (2)the arresting team violated the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Jaafar argued that the shabu was not formally offered as evidence during trial; rather, it was only presented during the hearing for the application for
bail. Hence, the Regional Trial Court should not have considered the shabu as evidence. Jaafar further argued that the prosecution failed to show an
unbroken chain of custody of the shabu allegedly obtained from him. He pointed out that the police officers neither photographed nor inventoried
the seized shabu sachet and emphasized that there were no representatives from the media and the Department of Justice as well as an elected
public official to witness the proceedings
On the other hand, the People of the Philippines argued that the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody rule was not fatal to the
prosecution's case considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved
The Court of Appeals ruled that although the sachet of shabu was not formally offered in evidence during trial, it was nevertheless identified by PO1
Look and the forensic chemist. Being part of their direct testimonies, the shabu formed part of the records of the case. Hence, the Court of Appeals
ruled that the Regional Trial Court did not err in considering the shabu as evidence
The Court of Appeals also agreed with the Regional Trial Court with regard to the alleged violation of the chain of custody rule. Although there was a
departure in the procedure mandated under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Court of Appeals ruled that it did not automatically render the
confiscated drugs inadmissible since the integrity of the seized shabu had been kept intact.
CA: In its Decision dated February 24, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision in toto.

ISSUE: Whether the guilt of accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-observance of the required procedure under Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165.

HELD: The Decision dated February 24, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01053-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Monir
Jaafar y Tambuyong is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove hisguilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In all prosecutions for violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its existence is essential to a judgment of
conviction. Hence, the identity of the dangerous drug must be clearly established
Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis.
Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized
from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of
authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed.
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the manner by which law enforcement officers should handle seized dangerous drugs.
RA 9165, SEC 1, PAR. 1:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall , immediately after seizure and conscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
conscatedand/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public ofcial who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] (Emphasis
supplied)

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 further provide:

X X X X

Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items [.] (Emphasis supplied)

X X X X

While it may be true that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution's case provided that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers, this exception will only be triggered by the existence
of a ground that justifies departure from the general rule.
This Court finds that the prosecution failed to show any justifiable reason that would warrant non-compliance with the mandatory requirements in
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Although the buy-bust team marked and conducted a physical inventory of the seized sachet of shabu, the records do not show that the seized
sachet had been photographed.
Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the physical inventory was done in the presence of accused-appellant or his representative,
representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and an elected public official.
The prosecution established during trial and on appeal that the buy-bust operation had been carefully planned by narrating the events with intricate
detail. However, at the same time, the prosecution relied heavily on the exception to the chain of custody rule.
Worse, the prosecution did not even offer any explanation on why they failed to comply with what was mandated under the law.
This Court cannot merely gloss over the glaring procedural lapses committed by the police officers, especially when what had been allegedly seized
from accused appellantwas only 0.0604 grams of shabu. Recent cases have highlighted the need to ensure the integrity of seized drugs in the chain
of custody when only a miniscule amount of drugs had been allegedly seized from the accused.
PEOPLE v. HAVANA

FACTS:

The appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs.


A civilian informant went to Police Station 10, Punta Princesa, Cebu City and reported to the duty officer SPO1 Vicente R. Espenido, Jr. (SPO1
Espenido) that the accused was actively engaged in the illegal drug trade.
SPO1 Espenido immediately assembled a buy-bust team, with him as the team leader, the civilian informant and with PO2 Enriquez, SPO1 Caete,
and SPO1 Jasper C. Nuez (PO2 Nuez) as back-up
In the course of the buy-bust operation, the civilian informant" went to the house of appellant and called the latter. PO2 Enriquez and SPO1
Caete, saw the civilian informant talking with the appellant. Not long after, they saw the "civilian informant" handling over the marked P100.00
bill to the appellant, who in exchange gave to the former a plastic pack containing 0.03 gram white crystalline substance which these two
suspected asshabu. After the consummation of the sale, SPO1 Espenido and his two companions rushed towards the "civilian informant" and the
appellant and arrested the latter after apprising him of his constitutional rights.
SPO1 Espenido recovered the P100.00 marked money from the appellant while the plastic pack was given by the "civilian informant" to SPO1
Espenido.
The appellant was taken to the police station for investigation. The P100.00 marked money and the plastic pack containing the
suspectedshabuwere turned over to SPO2 Nuez who marked the plastic pack with "FA" the initials of herein appellant. He then prepared a letter
requesting for examination 9 of the item seized from the appellant addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory. PCI Salinas, a forensic chemist of the
PNP Crime Laboratory of Brgy. Apas, Cebu City, testified that he conducted a laboratory examination of the recovered specimen 10 that yielded
"positive result for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

ISSUE:

(1) WON there was lack of pre-coordination with the PDEA regarding the buy-bust operation,
(2) WON the non-presentation in court of the unnamed "civilian informant" as poseur-buyer affects the validity of the prosecution
(3) WON there was non-compliance by the police officers with the prescribed procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165
and lastly, the dubious chain of custody of the subject shabu
HELD:

1 There is no merit in this contention. Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-
bust operation; that in fact, even the absence of coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust operation.

2 Presentation of the informant is not indispensable to the success in prosecuting drug-related cases. 18 Informers are almost always never
presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Unless their testimony is absolutely essential to the
conviction of the accused, their testimony may be dispensed with since their narrations would be merely corroborative to the testimonies of the
buy-bust team.

3 Yes, the court finds that the prosecution utterly failed to establish convincingly the chain of custody of the alleged seized plastic pack subject
matter hereof. In fact only PO2 Enriquez and SPO1 Caete testified in respect to the identity of the alleged evidence. However, from their
testimonies, the prosecution was not able to account for the linkages in the chain while the plastic pack was not or no longer in their respective
possession.

The poseur-buyer turned over the subject pack of shabu to their team leader SPO1 Espenido, there is no record as to what happened after the
turn-over.
Prosecution's cause is also marred by confusion and uncertainty regarding the possessor of the pack of shabuwhen it was brought to the police
station.
PO2 Enriquez's account, it was SPO2 Nuez who was in possession of the same an account which is at loggerheads stated that SPO1 Caete was
in custody and possession thereof and that he personally brought the same to the police station
Moreover, the prosecution failed to show how, when and from whom SPO2 Nuez or SPO1 Caete received the evidence. there is a clear missing
link in the chain of custody of the specimen after it left the hands of SPO1 Espenido.
Nor can the prosecution gain from the testimony of the forensic chemist PCI Salinas. the sum and substance of her testimony is that the alleged
pack ofshabusubmitted to her for laboratory examination showed that it was positive for methamphetylane hydrochloride orshabu. She never
testified where the substance came from.
The accused is ACQUITTED for failure to comply with the chain of custody procedure provided under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165
PEOPLE V. BARTOLOME

FACTS:

An informant went to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Unit (ADSOU) in Caloocan City to report the illicit drug dealings of the accused.
Police Inspector Cesar Cruz immediately instructed some of his men to conduct a buy-bust operation. The buy-bust team designated PO1
BorbanParas as the poseur-buyer. Paraswas given a P100.00 bill that he marked with his initials BP.
After the consummation of the sale and the buy-bust operation, the other members of the team and Paras grabbed the suspect. PO3 Rodrigo
Antonio, another member of the team, confiscated the marked P100.00 bill from the suspect, who was identified as Noel Bartolome y Bajo. Paras
immediately marked the sachet at the crime scene with Bartolome's initials NBB.
Insp. Cruz later requested in writing the PNP Crime Laboratory in Caloocan City to conduct a laboratory examination of the contents of the plastic
sachet seized. PO2 Rolando De Ocampo, another member of the buy-bust team, brought the request and the sachet and its contents to the
laboratory. Forensic Chemical Officer Jesse AbadillaDela Rosa of the PNP Crime Laboratory confirmed in Physical Science Report No. D-1038-03
that the plastic sachet contained 0.06 gram of methamphetamine hydrocholoride or shabu,
In his defense, the accused claims that the arresting officers had framed him up because they wanted to extort a substantial amount from him in
exchange for his release.
ISSUE:

1. WON the buy-bust operation was instigation and not an entrapment

2. WON POLICE'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURE IN THE CUSTODY OF SEIZED PROHIBITED AND REGULATED DRUGS
PRESCRIBED UNDER THE IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 CASTS SERIOUS DOUBT ON THE
IDENTITY OF THE SEIZED DRUG CONSTITUTING THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE OFFENSE.

HELD: The accused was CONVICTED

The appeal lacks merit.

First Issue:

Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. Officers of the law or
their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention
of committing
On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. The criminal
intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the
apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes
As a general rule, a buy-bust operation, considered as a form of entrapment, is a valid means of arresting violators of Republic Act No. 9165. In a buy-
bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. CTAaDC
A police officer's act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is known as a "decoy solicitation," is not prohibited by
law and does not render invalid the buy-bust operations
Applying the foregoing, the accused was not arrested following an instigation for him to commit the crime. Instead, he was caught in flagrante delicto
during an entrapment through buy-bust. In a buy-bust operation, the pusher sells the contraband to another posing as a buyer; once the transaction
is consummated, the pusher is validly arrested because he is committing or has just committed a crime in the presence of the buyer.

Second Issue:

The accused argues failure to present the informant as a witness against him, as well as the buy-bust team's failure to comply with the requirements
under Section 21, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165.
The presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule,
the informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested
through his efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the informant's identity is protected
Furthermore, Although it appears that the buy-bust team did not literally observe all the requirements, like photographing the confiscated drugs in
the presence of the accused, of a representative from the media and from the Department of Justice, and of any elected public official
However, whatever justification the members of the buy-bust team had to render in order to explain their non-observance of all the requirements
would remain unrevealed because the accused did not assail such non-compliance during the trial.
DELA CRUZ V. PEOPLE

FACTS:

Dela Cruz was charged with violation of Republic Act No. 8294 for illegal possession of firearms. Another Information was filed charging Dela
Cruz with the violation of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 7764, in relation to Section 261 of Batas PambansaBlg. 881
Accused was at a pier of the Cebu Domestic Port to go home to Iloilo. 13 While buying a ticket, he allegedly left his bag on the floor with a
porter. 14 It took him around 15 minutes to purchase a ticket. Dela Cruz then proceeded to the entrance of the terminal and placed his bag on
the x-ray scanning machine for inspection. 16 The operator of the x-ray machine saw firearms inside Dela Cruz's bag
The x-ray machine operator-on-duty saw the impression of what appeared to be three (3) firearms inside Dela Cruz's bag. 19 Upon seeing the
suspected firearms, she called the attention of port personnel Archie Igot (Igot) who was the baggage inspector then
Igot asked Dela Cruz whether he was the owner of the bag. 21Dela Cruz answered Igot in the affirmative and consented to Igot's manual
inspection of the bag
Igot told Officer Abregana, the Port Police Officer, that there were firearms in a bag owned by a certain person. 24Igot then pointed to the
person. 25 That person was later identified as Dela Cruz. 26
Dela Cruz admitted that he was owner of the bag. 27 The bag was then inspected and the following items were found inside: three (3) revolvers;
NBI clearance; seaman's book; other personal items; and four (4) live ammunitions placed inside the cylinder. 28 When asked whether he had
the proper documents for the firearms, Dela Cruz answered in the negative. Dela Cruz was then arrested and informed of his violation of a
crime punishable by law. 30 He was also informed of his constitutional rights
RTC: RTC held that Dela Cruz committed illegal possession of firearms. 39 It proved the following elements: "(a) the existence of the subject
firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess the same.
The trial court did not give credence to Dela Cruz's claim that the firearms were "planted" inside his bag
According to the trial court, Dela Cruz's argument was "easy to fabricate, but terribly difficult to disprove."
ISSUE:

1. WON petitioner Erwin Libo-on Dela Cruz was in possession of the illegal firearms within the meaning of the Commission on Elections Resolution No.
7764, in relation to Section 261 of Batas PambansaBlg. 881;

2. WON petitioner waived his right against unreasonable searches and seizures; and

3. assumingthat there was no waiver, WON there was a valid search and seizure in this case.

HELD: Accused is CONVICTED. Petition is DENIED

First Issue:

1. Petitioner argues that the firearms found in his bag were not his. Thus, he could not be liable for possessing the contraband.

This argument is untenable


The law applicable is Section 2 (a) of Commission on Elections Resolution No. 7764, which provides:
o SECTION 2. Prohibitions. During the election period from January 14, 2007 it shall be unlawful for:
a. Any person, including those possessing a permit to carry firearms outside of residence or place of business, to bear,
carry or transport firearms or other deadly weapons in public places including any building, street, park, private vehicle
or public conveyance. For the purpose firearm includes airgun, while deadly weapons include hand grenades or other
explosives, except pyrotechnics[.]

o Section 261 (q) ofBatas PambansaBlg. 881states:


Section 261. Prohibited Acts. The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

xxxxxxxxx

(q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. Any person who, although possessing a permit to carry firearms,
carries any firearms outside his residence or place of business during the election period, unless authorized in writing by the
Commission

Second and Third Issue:

For a full understanding of the nature of the constitutional rights involved, we will examine three (3) points of alleged intrusion into the right to
privacy of petitioner: first, when petitioner gave his bag for x-ray scanning to port authorities; second, when the baggage inspector opened
petitioner's bag and called the Port Authority Police; and third, when the police officer opened the bag to search, retrieve, and seize the firearms
and ammunition
The first point of intrusion occurred when petitioner presented his bag for inspection to port personnel the x-ray machine operator and baggage
inspector manning the x-ray machine station.
The search conducted on the accused was a valid exception to the prohibition against warrantless searches as it was pursuant to a routine airport
security procedure. The reason behind it is that there is a reasonable reduced expectation of privacy when coming into airports or ports of travel.
Port authorities were acting within their duties and functions when it used x-ray scanning machines for inspection of passengers' bags. 134 When
the results of the x-ray scan revealed the existence of firearms in the bag, the port authorities had probable cause to conduct a search of
petitioner's bag. Notably, petitioner did not contest the results of the x-ray scan.
The second point of intrusion when the baggage inspector opened petitioner's bag and called the attention of the port police officer.
This was not unreasonable search.
The port personnel's actions proceed from the authority and policy to ensure the safety of travelers and vehicles within the port. At this point,
petitioner already submitted himself and his belongings to inspection by placing his bag in the x-ray scanning machine.
The presentation of petitioner's bag for x-ray scanning was voluntary. Petitioner had the choice of whether to present the bag or not.
Furthermore, Any perceived curtailment of liberty due to the presentation of person and effects for port security measures is a permissible
intrusion to privacy when measured against the possible harm to society caused by lawless persons.
A third point of intrusion to petitioner's right to privacy occurred during petitioner's submission to port security measures
This court should determine whether the requirements for a valid waiver against unreasonable searches and seizures were met
After detection of the firearms through the x-ray scanning machine and inspection by the baggage inspector, Officer Abregana was called to
inspect petitioner's bag.
The Constitution safeguards a person's right against unreasonable searches and seizures.A warrantless search is presumed to be unreasonable.
However, this court lays down the exceptions where warrantless searches are deemed legitimate: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest; (2) seizure in "plain view";(3) search of a moving vehicle; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and frisk; and (7)
exigent and emergency circumstances
This was a case involving consented warrantless arrest
Petitioner anchors his case on the claim that he did not validly consent to the search conducted by the port authorities. He argues that he did not
have an actual intention to relinquish his right against a warrantless search.
In cases involving the waiver of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, events must be weighed in its entirety. The trial court's
findings show that petitioner presented his bag for scanning in the x-ray machine. When his bag went through the x-ray machine and the firearms
were detected, he voluntarily submitted his bag for inspection to the port authorities. petitioner is now precluded from claiming an invalid
warrantless search when he voluntarily submitted to the search on his person.
The SC does not also cannot subscribe to petitioner's argument that there was no valid consent to the search because his consent was premised on
his belief that there were no prohibited items in his bag. The defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence would be found does not
automatically negate valid consent to the search when incriminating items are found. His or her belief must be measured against the totality of the
circumstances.Again, petitioner voluntarily submitted himself to port security measures and, as he claimed during trial, he was familiar with the
security measures since he had been traveling back and forth through the sea port
NELSON VALLENO Y LUCITO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO. 192050
JANUARY 9, 2013

FACTS:

The Information charged petitioner of illegal possession of shabu. It reads:

That on or about the 12th day of March, 2004, in Barangay San Antonio, Milaor, CamarinesSur,and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, without any authority of law, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously possess, control and have in custody nine (9) transparent plastic
sachets, containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as "SHABU", a prohibited drug, weighing no less than 34.7011 grams, with an estimated
cost or market value of P69,402.20, to the great damage and prejudice of the Republic of the
Philippines.

Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.Five police officers, two barangay officials and one forensic chemist testified for the prosecution.On
13 June 2008, the trial court rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal possession of shabu. In convicting petitioner, the
trial court lent credence to the straightforward testimonies of the police officers over the mere denial of the accused. The trial court ruled that the chain of
custody over the illegal drugs seized was properly established.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed petitioners conviction on 29 October 2009 and denied petitioners motion for reconsideration on 13 April 2010.
Petitioner now seeks relief before this Court via a petition for review.

ISSUE:

Whether the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

YES.
In order for prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, there must be proof that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or
an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of
being in possession of the drug.

All these elements were duly established by the prosecution. During the search, PO3 Edrano found a bag on top of a cabinet inside the house of
petitioner. He handed the same to PO3 Villano, who in turn opened it, and found nine (9) plastic sachets of shabu.

Although the shabu was not found by the searching team on petitioners person, it was found inside a bag which was hidden on top of a cabinet in the
house of petitioner. Thus, petitioner is deemed in possession thereof. Petitioner was not lawfully authorized to possess the same. It can also be inferred that
petitioner was privy to the existence of the shabu. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi sufficient to convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the
absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. With the burden of evidence shifted to the petitioner, it was his duty to explain his innocence about the regulated
drug seized from his possession. This, petitioner failed to do.
.
The petitioners proposition that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt is anchored on his claim that the prosecution
failed to prove and establish the chain of custody of the subject prohibited drugs allegedly seized from his house.

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, to wit:

Section 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:

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

The provisions of Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of
Republic Act No. 9165 provide:

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.

The Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 9165 offer some flexibility when a proviso added 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." 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.
In the instant case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs was not broken. The prosecution established that PO3 Edrano recovered the white
plastic sachets, later on confirmed positive for traces of shabu. PO3 Edrano handed them over to PO3 Villano, who made markings on the seized items and
prepared an inventory of the same while inside petitioners house. It was also shown that PO3 Villano brought the seized illegal drugs to the police station where
he himself prepared the inventory. While he presented the same to a certain PO3 Molina, it was still PO3 Villano and SPO4 Fabiano who first brought the seized
illegal drugs to the court, who in turn ordered him to bring it to the PNP Crime Laboratory. In the letter request addressed to the forensic chemist, it was PO3
Villano who signed as the requesting party. Clearly therefore, the recovery and handling of the seized illegal drugs were more than satisfactorily established in
this case.

Finally, there was nothing irregular in the conduct of search of petitioners house. There were variations in the witnesses testimonies as to whether
petitioner was inside the house during the search. One witness testified that petitioner was coming in and out of the house during the search while the other
witnesses claimed that petitioner was waiting just outside the house. Assuming that petitioner was indeed outside the house, it does not taint the regularity of
the search. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court allows the absence of the lawful occupant provided that two witnesses are present. The presence of the two
barangay officials was not disputed by petitioner
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs EDWIN DALA WIS y HIDALGO
G.R. No. 197925

FACTS

Respondent Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo was charged with Violation of Article IIof RA No9165,otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
wherein he dispense, or deliver 0.14 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride(shabu), a dangerous drug.
During the buy bust operation ,the police officers, who were merely at a distance of seven (7) meters away, convincingly testified that they personally saw
their asset hand the marked money to appellant who, in tum, handed the plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance. Immediately thereafter, they
alighted from the van and moved towards appellant. P02 Aranza himself confiscated the marked money from appellant's right hand, who was duly informed of
his constitutional rights before he was brought to the barangay hall, and then to the police station. There, the confiscated sachet was presented to POI Calingasan
who recorded the operation in the police blotter and then turned over the seized item to P02 Matibag, the duty investigator. In the latter's presence, P02 Aranza
marked the plastic sachet with his initials. Thereafter, P02 Matibag brought the same to the crime laboratory where PO 1 Malaluan, the duty receiving clerk,
received said items and turned them over to Senior Inspector Jupri C. Dilantar, who conducted the laboratory examination. Based on said examination, Senior
Inspector Dilantar found that the plastic sachet seized from appellant contains methamphetamine hydrochloride, which finding he reduced into writing in
Chemistry Report.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the failure of the apprehending officer to properly preserved the seized items pursuant to the chain of custody rule will
automatically render an arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence

RULING:
NO.
It bears stressing however, that failure to strictly comply with the rule of chain of custody will not render an arrest illegal or the seized items
inadmissible in evidence in view of the qualification permitted by Section21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165, to wit:

(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 integrityand 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.

Thus, it has been held that for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved pursuant to the chain of
custody rule, non-compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 does not automatically render illegal the arrest of an accused or inadmissible the items seized. 22
The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the
authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused.

It must be emphasized, at this point, that for a successful _prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs
underSection 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, all of the following elements must satisfied:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale,and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.

Succinctly stated, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate
the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti,as evidence

In the instant case, the Court finds that the foregoing requisites were sufficiently met. As aptly found by the courts below, evidence for the
prosecution adequately established beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the seller and buyer as well as the exchange of the plastic sachet of shabu and the
marked money. There was direct proof that the sale of shabu actually transpired, the chain of custody having been duly preserved, establishing the corpus delicti
in court. This Court, therefore, finds no compelling reason to diverge from the trial court's findings, especially since such were affirmed by the appellate court.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs BELBAN SIC-OPEN y DIMAS
G.R. No. 211680

FACTS:

On February 4, 2009, the team of Agent Chumanao found its way to Kibungan, Benguet to meet with the seller and pick up the marijuana bricks. True
enough, the seller met them at the designated place and led them to the object of the sale. Satisfied that the object was indeed marijuana bricks, poseur-buyer
Agent Chumanao parted with the purchase price. Once the purchase price was in the hands of the seller, the poseurbuyer effected the arrest.

The prosecution evidence shows that right after the arrest of the accused the two boxes containing the marijuana bricks were loaded into the vehicle.
Right there and then Agent Chumanao marked the bricks with his initials "BCC" and indicated the date and time of seizure on ail the bricks in the presence of the
accused. Considering that it was still dark and the place was quite isolated, the team left the place and went back to their office. The marijuana bricks were
turned over to the PDEA Evidence Custodian SP04 Romeo Abordo.

Upon the receipt of the marijuana, SP04 Abordo conducted the inventory. The marijuana bricks were laid out on the table and all the bricks bore the
initials of the poseur-buyer. Witnessing the' inventory,the prosecution evidence also consists of pictures taken during the inventory. The seized items were then
brought to the Crime Laboratory and Forensic Chemist all with the markings "BCC", the date "02104109" and a signature. After the examination, the marijuana
turned over to the Crime Laboratory Evidence Custodian. The evidence custodian, PO1Dennis delos Reyes brought the marijuana bricks to court and the court
saw for itself the markings made by the poseur-buyer and the forensic chemist. Also, in his testimony, the poseur-buyer Agent Chumanao identified the
marijuana bricks brought by POI Delos Reyes as the same items he seized from the accused. In the same vein, Forensic Chemist Canlas identified the same items
as the one turned over to her by the PDEA Evidence Custodian and which she subjected to laboratory examination.

ISSUE:

W/N the elements of the crime illegal sale of marijuana in violation of Section 5, Article
II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 were
established beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

YES

For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the following elements must be
satisfied:

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the
marked money consummate the illegal transaction

In this case, all the requisites of the illegal sale of marijuana were met. The identities of the buyer, the seller, the prohibited drug,
and the marked money have all been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the supporting
documents they presented and offered in evidence.

Furthermore, the Court holds that the chain of custody of the seized marijuana did not suffer from significant flaws. Pertinent portion of Section 21,
Article II ofR.A. No. 9165 mandates:

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 ofdangerous 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:

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

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well asinstruments /paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA
Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued within twentyfour (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous
drugs,plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the
forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the
next twenty-four (24) hours

The illegal drug being the corpus delicti,it is essential for the prosecution to establish with moral certainty and prove to the
court beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drug presented to the trial court as evidence is the same illegal drug seized from the accused, tested and
found to be positive for dangerous substance.Here, the body of evidence adduced by the prosecution supports the conclusion that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the subject marijuana were successfully and properly preserved and safeguarded through an unbroken chain of
custody.
RA 8049 CASES ANTI-HAZING LAW

TITLE: ANTI- HAZING

G.R. No. 196735 May 5, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
DANILO FELICIANO, JR., JULIUS VICTOR MEDALLA, CHRISTOPHER SOLIVA, WARREN L. ZINGAPAN, and ROBERT MICHAEL BELTRAN ALVIR, Accused-appellants

Facts:

On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1:00 in the afternoon, seven (7) members of the Sigma Rho fraternity were eating lunch at the Beach House Canteen,
near the Main Library of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, when they were attacked by several masked men carrying baseball bats and lead pipes. Some
of them sustained injuries that required hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina, died from his injuries.

An information1for murder wasfiled against several members of the Scintilla Juris fraternity, namely, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor L. Medalla, Warren L.
Zingapan, Robert Michael Beltran Alvir, Christopher L. Soliva, Reynaldo G. Ablanida, Carlo JoletteFajardo, George Morano, Raymund E. Narag, Gilbert Merle
Magpantay, Benedict Guerrero, and Rodolfo Penalosa, Jr.

Separate informations were also filed against them for the attempted murder of Sigma Rho fraternity members Cesar Mangrobang, Jr.,2 Cristobal Gaston, Jr.,3
and Leandro Lachica,4 and the frustrated murder of Sigma Rho fraternity members Mervin Natalicio5 and Amel Fortes.6 Only 11 of the accused stood trial since
one of the accused, Benedict Guerrero, remained at large.

Facts from the Prosecution

Leandro Lachica, Amel Fortes, DerinisVenturina, Mervin Natalicio, Cristobal Gaston, Jr., Felix Tumaneng,7 and Cesar Magrobang, Jr. are all members of the Sigma
Rho Fraternity. On December 8, 1994, at around 12:30 to 1 :00 p.m., they were having lunch at Beach House Canteen, located at the back of the Main Library of
the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City.8 Suddenly, Dennis Venturina shouted, "Brads, brods!"9

The members of Sigma Rho Fraternity were attacked by several men armed with base ball bats and lead pipes. The attackers were wearing mask and some were
not. In addition to that, he Sigma Rho Fraternity members were able to recognized their attackers as follows:

1. Leandro Lachica, Grand Archon of Sigma Rho Fraternity, one of the attackers as Robert Michael Beltran Alvir because his mask fell off.Also saw Warren
Zingapan and Julius Victor L. Medalla , having no masks on.

2. Mervin Natalicio, the Vice Grand Archon of Sigma Rho , who saw Zingapan and Christopher L. Soliva beating wearing no masks. As well as Benedict Guerrero.

3. Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., member of Sigma Rho, he recognized Gilbert Merle Magpantay and Carlo JoletteFajardo because their masks fell off.

Also saw Danilo Feliciano, Jr. was beating Venturina up with a lead pipe while Raymund E. Narag was aiming to hit Venturina.

4. Cristobal Gaston, Jr., member of Sigma Rho, saw Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Warren Zingapan, and George Morano.

5. Amel Fortes, member of Sigma Rho, he saw Danilo Feliciano, Jr. hitting Venturina.58 He was also able to see Warren Zingapan and George Moranoat the
scene.

Leandro Lachica was told that members of Scintilla Juris were seen in the west wing of the Main Library and were regrouping in SM North.61Lachica and his
group then set off for SM North to confront Scintilla Juris and identify their attackers.62

When they arrived in SM North, pillboxes and stones were thrown at them.63Lachica saw Robert Michael Beltran Alvir and Warren Zingapan and a certain Carlo
Taparan.64 They had no choice but to get away from the mall and proceed instead to U.P. where the Sigma Rho Fraternity members held a meeting.65

On the night of December 8, 1994, the officers of Sigma Rho advised the victims to lodge their complaints with the National Bureau of Investigation.66 Their
counsel, Atty. Frank Chavez, told the U.P. Police that the victims would be giving their statements before the National Bureau of Investigation, promising to give
the U.P. Police copies of their statements. In the meantime, Venturina was transferred from the U.P. Infirmary to St. Luke's Hospital on December 8, 1994. He
died on December 10, 1994.67 On December 11, 1994, an autopsy was conducted.at the back of the upper left arm and hematoma on the back of both
hands,"69 "two (2) Dr. Victoria concluded that Venturina died of traumatic head injuries.75

On December 12, 1994, Lachica, Natalicio, Mangrobang, Fortes, and Gaston executed their respective affidavits76 before the National Bureau of Investigation
and underwent medico-legal examinations.

The defense presented several number of witness posing an alibi in favor of the accused defendants in this case.

LOWER COURT DECISIONS:

1. Trial Court- Found that Robert Michael Alvir, Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor Medalla, and Warren Zingapan were guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder and attempted murder and were sentenced to, among other penalties, the penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, acquitted
Reynaldo Ablanida, Carlo JoletteFajardo, Gilbert Magpantay, George Morano, and Raymund Narag.102 The case against Benedict Guerrero was ordered archived
by the court until his apprehension

2. CA- Court of Appeals, in a Special First Division of Five, affirmed108 the decision of the Regional Trial Court, with three (3) members concurring109an one (1)
dissenting

ISSUES
1. Whether accused-appellants' constitutional rights were violated when the information against them contained the aggravating circumstance of the use of
masks despite the prosecution presenting witnesses to prove that the masks fell off-

2. Whether the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals correctly ruled, on the basis of the evidence, that accused-appellants were sufficiently identified.

3. Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants attacked private complainants and caused the death of Dennis
Venturina.

Ruling:

1. It is enshrined in our Bill of Rights that "[n]o person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law."111 This includes the right of
the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and "to be informed of the nature and accusation against him."

Contrary to the arguments of the appellants, the inclusion of the phrase "wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information does not violate
their constitutional rights.

It should be remembered that every aggravating circumstance being alleged must be stated in the information. Failure to state an aggravating circumstance,
even if duly proven at trial, will not be appreciated as such.115 It was, therefore, incumbent on the prosecution to state the aggravating circumstance of
"wearing masks and/or other forms of disguise" in the information in order for all the evidence, introduced to that effect, to be admissible by the trial court.

The introduction of the prosecution of testimonial evidence that tends to prove that the accused were masked but the masks fell off does not prevent them
from including disguise as an aggravating circumstance.116 What is important in alleging disguise as an aggravating circumstance is that there was a
concealment of identity by the accused. The inclusion of disguise in the information was, therefore, enough to sufficiently apprise the accused that in the
commission of the offense they were being charged with, they tried to conceal their identity.

The introduction of evidence which shows that some of the accused were not wearing masks is also not violative of their right to be informed of their offenses.

2. The accused were sufficiently identified by the witnesses for the prosecution

The trial court, in weighing all the evidence on hand, found the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution to be credible.

The trial court correctly held that "considering the swiftness of the incident,"123 there would be slight inconsistencies in their statements. In People v. Adriano
Cabrillas,124 it was previously observed that:

It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness may
notice while the other may not observe or remember. In fact, jurisprudence even warns against a perfect dovetailing of narration by different witnesses as it
could mean that their testimonies were prefabricated and rehearsed.125 (Emphasis supplied)

In the commotion, it was more than likely that the masked assailants could have lost their masks. It had been testified by the victims that some of the assailants
were wearing masks of either a piece of cloth or a handkerchief and that Alvir,130 Zingapan,131 Soliva,132 and Feliciano133 had masks on at first but their
masks fell off and hung around their necks.

Equally telling was the testimony of defense witness Frisco Capilo during cross-examination who observed that some of the attackers were wearing masks and
some were not,

While the attack was swift and sudden, the victims would have had the presence of mind to take a look at their assailants if they were identifiable. Their positive
identification, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, must be upheld to be credible.

3. Accused-appellants were correctly charged with murder, and there was treachery in the commission of the crime

According to the provisions of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the accused-appellants were correctly charged with murder. Article 248 states:

ART. 248. Murder.-Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua, to death if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to
insure or afford impunity;
As correctly found by the trial court and the appellate court, the offense committed against Dennis Venturina was committed by a group that took advantage of
its superior strength and with the aid of armed men. The appellate court, however, incorrectly ruled out the presence of treachery in the commission of the
offense.

It has been stated previously by this court that:

[T]reachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly
and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

The appellate court, in affirming the conviction of the accused-appellants, ruled that contrary to the findings of the trial court, there was no treachery involved.

This reasoning is clearly erroneous. The victims in this case were eating lunch on campus. They were not at a place where they would be reasonably expected to
be on guard for any sudden attack by rival fraternity men.

The victims, who were unarmed, were also attacked with lead pipes and baseball bats. The only way they could parry the blows was with their arms. In a
situation where they were unnamed and outnumbered, it would be impossible for them to fight back against the attackers. The attack also happened in less
than a minute, which would preclude any possibility of the bystanders being able to help them until after the incident.

The swiftness and the suddenness of the attack gave no opportunity for the victims to retaliate or even to defend themselves. Treachery, therefore, was
present in this case

The presence of conspiracy makes all of the accused-appellants liable for murder and attempted murder

It should be remembered that the trial court found that there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants160 and the appellate court sustainedthis
finding.161

Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their respective active
participation in the commission of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in contemplation of law the act of one is the act of
all.

The liabilities of the accused-appellants in this case arose from a single incident wherein the accused-appellants were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes,
all in agreement to do the highest amount of damage possible to the victims. Some were able to run away and take cover, but the others would fall prey at the
hands of their attackers

The appellate court, therefore, erred in finding the accused-appellants guilty only of slight physical injuries. It would be illogical to presume that despite the
swiftness and suddenness of the attack, the attackers intended to kill only Venturina, Natalicio, and Fortes, and only intended to injure Lachica, Mangrobang,
and Gaston. Since the intent to kill was evident from the moment the accused-appellants took their first swing, all of them were liable for that intent to kill.

For this reason, the accused-appellants should be liable for the murder of Dennis Venturina and the attempted murder of Mervin Natalicio, Cesar Mangrobang,
Jr., Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal Gaston, Jr.

OVER-ALL COURT DECISION:

The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED insofar as the accused-appellants Danilo Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor Medalla, Christopher Soliva, Warren L.
Zingapan, and Robert Michael Beltran Alvir are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder with the MODIFICATION that they be fouhd GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Attempted Murder in Criminal Case Nos. Q95-61136, Q95-61135, Q95-61134, Q95-61138, and Q95-61137.
RA 7080 CASES ANTI-PLUNDER ACT

Title: PLUNDER

G.R. No. 187951

Wellex Group Inc. vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts:

On 12 September 2007, the Sandiganbayanpromulgated a Decision in Criminal Case No. 26558, the plunder case filed against former President Joseph Ejercito
Estrada said Decision found him guilty of the crime of plunder and ordered the forfeiture of the followingin accordance with Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080,
as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the Court hereby declares the forfeiture in favor of the Government of the following:

(1) The P545,291,000.00, with interest and income earned, inclusive of the P200,000,000.00, deposited in the name and account of the Erap Muslim
Youth Foundation.

(2) The amount of P189,000,000.00, inclusive of interests and income earned, deposited in the Jose Velarde account.

(3) The real property consisting of a house and lot dubbed as Boracay Mansion.

On 25 October 2007, President Arroyo granted former President Estrada executive clemency through a Pardon. The Pardon, however, expressly stipulates
forfeitures imposed by the Sandiganbayan remain in force and in full, including all writs and processes issued by the Sandiganbayan in pursuance except for the
bank account(s) he owned before his tenure as President.3

Former President Estrada filed a Motion to Quash Writ of Execution.6 He alleged that the Writ of Execution expanded the 12 September 2007 Decision by
including within the scope of forfeiture "any and all" of his personal and real properties. He believes that the added portion in the writ is tantamount to the
imposition of a penalty and is thus a nullity.

In the plunder case, the Office of the Special Prosecutor filed an Opposition asserted that Decision of the Sandiganbayan, was in fact only implemented Section 2
of Republic Act No. 7080,9 the Plunder Law, under which his was convicted.

Wellex wrote a letter11 to Banco de Oro expressing the desire to retrieve the Waterfront shares the former had used as collateral to secure an earlier loan
obligation to Equitable-PCI Bank. It was at this time that Wellex became aware of the Writ of Constructive Distraint issued by the BIR to Investment
Management Account (IMA) Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 in relation to the plunder case. Petitioner alleged that its loan obligation for which the shares were
given as collateral has been extinguished, petitioner said thatinterest payments on the loan were made for a certain period but these payments stopped at some
point in time. Principal payment of the obligation was made by or on behalf of the borrower, not to the bank as investment manager, but instead directly to the
owner of the account. So, THE WELLEX GROUP, INC, is now retrieving the shares given as security for the loan obligation which apparently has been
extinguished.

On 28 January 2008Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolutionpartially granting the Motion to Quash of former President Estrada. It qualified its ruling by stating
that the forfeiture process under the Plunder Law was limited only to those proven to be traceable as ill-gotten. Which includes the accounts receivable and
assets found at Banco De Oro (the successor in interest of Equitable PCI Bank) in the personal IMA Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 in the name of Jose
Velarde (which has been adjudged by the Court to be owned by former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and the depositary of the ill-gotten wealth)
consisting of Promissory Notes and the chattel mortgage securing the loan. Waterfront shares; and Common Trust Fund money in the amount of
P95,759,000.00 plus interest earned thereby.

BDO sought the guidance of the Sandiganbayan on how to proceed with the disposition of the subject IMA Trust Account in view of the lien by the BIR and the
claim of Wellex.

On 16 May 2008, the Sandiganbayan held a hearing, in which the parties explained their respective positions on the propriety of the levy over the subject shares.
Thereafter, it ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda. Only the BIR filed its Memorandum, while petitioner Wellex failed to file any.

Instead of filing its memorandum, BDO made a submission informing the Sandiganbayan that the bank had not yet received any payment from Wellex for the
latters principal obligation, which was secured by the subject Waterfront shares and covered by a Promissory Note and a chattel mortgage.

On 24 September 2008, the Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution dated 15 September 2008 acknowledging the validity of the claim of the BIR against the
former President and his spouse for income tax deficiency.Sandiganbayanruled that the subject IMA Trust Account was ripe for forfeiture after the conviction of
former President Estrada in the plunder case had become final and executory. It directed Banco De Oro Unibank, Inc. (formerly BDO-EPCIB, Inc) to deliver/remit
to this Court the amount of money covered by IMA Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 in the name of Jose Velarde.

On 11 October 2008, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), as well as Wellex, filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the 24 September 2008
Resolution of the Sandiganbayan.

On 02 April 2009, the Special Division of the Sandiganbayan promulgated a Resolution26 denying the MRs filed by the CIR and petitioner Wellex. The court even
suggested that, for Wellex to retrieve the mortgaged Waterfront shares of stock, petitioner should pay its outstanding loan obligation to BDO, so that the latter
could remit the payment to the Sandiganbayan.

Hence, the present Petition before this Court.


ISSUES

I. THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN FINDING THAT THE FUND IN THE
IMAACCOUNT WAS TRACEABLE TO THE P189.7 MILLION ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH DEPOSITED IN THE JOSE VELARDE ACCOUNT. NO

II. THE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE RESOLUTION DATED 24
SEPTEMBER 2008 AND THE RESOLUTION DATED 02 APRIL 2009, BOTH OF WHICH UNDULY EXPANDED THE COVERAGE OF THE 12 SEPTEMBER 2007 DECISION IN
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 26558. NO, it did not expand

RULING:

1. We DENY the Petition of Wellex Group for lack of merit.

The 12 September 2007 Decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. 26558 convicted former President Estrada of the crime of plunder under Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as amended. In convicting him in the plunder case the court unmasked him as the beneficial owner of the Jose Velarde accounts adjudged as
ill-gotten wealth. It was also established during the trial of that case that the P 500 million lent to herein petitioner came from the former President and was
coursed through the said trust account. This fact is supported by documentary as well as the testimonial evidence coming from the former President himself.

The funding for the P500,000,000.00 did not come via the debit-credit authority, nonetheless, the funding of the P500,000,000.00 came from S/A 0160-62501-5
of Jose Velarde.

The so-called "internal arrangements" with the bank, involved the use of S/A 0160-62501-5 which had been the funding source of the P500,000,000.00 to be
placed in the Trust account for lending to Gatchalian. The fact that the P500,000,000.00 funding was not effected by a debit-credit transaction but by a
withdrawal of P500,000,000.00 from the said S/A 0160-62501-5 proves that the money lenttoGatchalian was the personal money of FPres. Estrada through
the Jose Velarde account of which he is the owner.

From the foregoing, the ineluctable conclusion is that the so-called internal arrangement which allegedly prompted FPres. Estrada to sign the various documents
presented to him by Clarissa Ocampo is a futile attempt to escape the consequence of his admission that he signed as Jose Velarde which leads to the legal and
indisputable conclusion that Pres. Estrada is the owner of the Jose Velarde Accounts.

From the above findings, it is clear that the funding for the loan to Wellex was sourced from Savings Account No. 0160-62501-5 and coursed through the IMA
Trust Account. This savings account was under the name of Jose Velarde and was forfeited by the government after being adjudged as ill-gotten. The trust
account can then be traced or linked to an account that was part of the web of accounts considered by the Sandiganbayan as ill-gotten.

2. The Sandiganbayan did not unduly expanded the scope of its 12 September 2007 Decision when it issued the Resolutions that specified the forfeiture of the
assets of the subject IMATrust Account, including the Waterfront and Wellex shares owned by petitioner.

It was established during the trial of the plunder case that the source of funding for the loan extended to Wellex was former President Estrada, who had in turn
sourced the fund from S/A 0160-62501-5 and coursed it through IMA Trust Account 101-78056-1. After his conviction for the crime of plunder, the IMA Trust
Account under the name of Jose Velarde was forfeited. As a consequence, all assets and receivables of the said trust account were also included in the
forfeiture, which was without any legal basis.

Section 2 of R.A. 7080, as amended, provides for the forfeiture of the wealth proven to be ill-gotten, as well its interests, thus:

SECTION 2.Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity
or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of
overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the
crime of plunder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the commission of an offense
contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of
mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten
wealth and their interests and other incomes and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof forfeited
in favor of the State. (Emphasis supplied)

We do not agree that the Sandiganbayan unduly expanded its scope of its Decision for the forfeiture of the assests of the IMA Trust Account.

Petitioners interpretation of Section 2 of R.A. 7080 is narrow and rigid and defeats rather than serves the ends of justice in plunder cases. Section 2 of R.A. 7080
mandates the court to forfeit not only the ill-gotten wealth, interests earned, and other incomes and assets, but also the properties and shares of stock derived
from the deposit or investment. The Sandiganbayan Decision imposed the penalty of forfeiture when it convicted the former President Estrada of the crime of
plunder. It is beyond cavil that it found the subject IMA Trust Account traceable to the accounts declared to be ill-gotten by the former President. Thus, to rigidly
construe the mandate of Section 2 of R.A. 7080, as petitioner would want us to do, is to render the Plunder Law inutile.

Interpreted otherwise, what should be forfeited are assets in whatever form that are derived or can be traced to the ill-gotten wealth as defined under sub-pars.
1-6, par. (d), Section 1 of the Plunder Law. Should Assets (sic) not derived, nor traceable to the ill-gotten wealth be forfeited in favor of the State, such would
result in deprivation of property without due process of law.

Not only does the Plunder Law authorize the forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth as well as any asset acquired with the use of the ill-gotten wealth, Section 6
likewise authorizes the forfeiture of these ill-gotten wealth and any assets acquired therefrom even if they are in the possession of other persons. Thus, Section
6 provides:

"Section 6. Prescription of Crimes The crime punishable under this Act shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the rights of the State to receive
properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel."39
It is beyond doubt that IMA Trust Account No. 101-78056-1 and its assets were traceable to the account adjudged as ill-gotten. As such, the trust account and its
assets were indeed within the scope of the forfeiture Order issued by the Sandiganbayan in the plunder case against the former

President. Thus, it did not commit grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the forfeiture of the trust account in BDO, including the assets and receiveables
thereof.
TITLE: PLUNDER

GR NO. 148468

ATTY EDWARD SERAPIO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN

Facts:

This case is a consolidation of 3 cases filed by petitioner Edward Serapio, assailing the resolutions of the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan denying his petition
for bail, motion for a reinvestigation and motion to quash, and a petition for habeas corpus, all in relation to Criminal Case No. 26558 for plunder

Petitioner was a member of the Board of Trustees and the Legal Counsel of the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation, a non-stock, non-profit foundation for the
purpose of providing educational opportunities for the poor and underprivileged but deserving Muslim youth and students, and support to research and
advance studies of young Muslim educators and scientists.

Petitioner, as trustee of the Foundation, received on its behalf a donation P200 Million) from Ilocos Sur Governor Luis ChavitSingson. Petitioner turned over the
said amount to the Foundations treasurer who later deposited it in the Foundations account with the Equitable PCI Bank.

In the latter part of the year 2000, Gov. Singson publicly accused then President Joseph E. Estrada and his cohorts of engaging in several illegal activities,
including its operation on the illegal numbers game known as jueteng. Ombudsman filed Several criminal complaints against Joseph Estrada, Jinggoy Estrada
and petitioner, together with other persons.

The Ombudsman filed with the Sandiganbayanseveral information against Estrada and other person and no bail was recommended for the provisional released
of the accused. Ombudsman found probable cause for plunder. A warrant for his arrest was issued. Upon learning of the said warrant Petitioner voluntarily
surrendered to the PNP.Petitioner filed an MR. It was denied because the information was already filed with Sandiganbayan.

Petitioner was detained at the Camp Crame for the said charge. Petitioner, thereafter, file an Urgent Motion for Bail but such motion is opposed by the
prosecution for the reason that petitioner should be arraign first before he can avail of Bail. Later on Petitioner simultaneously filed a motion to quash.
Arraignment was set and petitioner files a petition for bail. Several other bail meetings did not push throug due to various pleadings filed by petitioner and the
prosecution.

Even before the Sandiganbayan can resolve the issues, petitioner filed with the SC a petition for habeas corpus and certiorari praying that the issued Resolution
of the Sandiganbayan be declared void because he was denied of due process.n

ISSUE:

1.Whether or not the amended information constitutes plunder under RA7080? Yes.

2. Whether or not the P540 Million is an ill-gotten wealth as defined by section (d) of RA7080? Yes.

Ruling:

1. In this case, the amended Information specifically alleges that all the accused, including petitioner, connived and conspired with former President Joseph E.
Estrada to commit plunder through any or a combination or a series of overt or criminal acts or similar schemes or means. And in paragraph (a) of the amended
Information, petitioner and his co-accused are charged with receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances money in the aggregate amount of
P545,000,000.00. In Jose Jinggoy Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division), et al., we held that the word series is synonymous with the clause on several
instances; it refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of the items in Section 1(d) of the law. We further held that the word combination
contemplates the commission of at least any two different predicate acts in any of the said items. We ruled that plainly, subparagraph (a) of the amended
information charges accused therein, including petitioner, with plunder committed by a series of the same predicate act under Section 1(d)(2) of the law and
that:

x Sub-paragraph (a) alleged the predicate act of receiving, on several instances, money from illegal gambling, in consideration of toleration or protection of
illegal gambling, and expressly names petitioner as one of those who conspired with former President Estrada in committing the offense. This predicate act
corresponds with the offense described in item [2] of the enumeration in Section 1(d) of R.A. No. 7080. x xx.1[20]

It is not necessary to allege in the amended Information a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy because as
Section 3 of R.A. 7080 specifically provides, the same is evidentiary and the general rule is that matters of evidence need not be alleged in the Information.2[21]
2. The Court also ruled in Jose Jinggoy Estrada vs. Sandiganbayanthat the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17 inclusive of the P545 million alleged in
paragraph (a) of the amended information is ill-gotten wealth as contemplated in Section 1, paragraph 1(d) of Republic Act 7080, as amended, and that all the
accused in paragraph (a) to (d) of the amended information conspired and confederated with former President Estrada to enable the latter to amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount of P4,097,804,173.17.

Under the amended Information, all the accused, including petitioner, are charged of having conspired and confabulated together in committing plunder. When
two or more persons conspire to commit a crime, each is responsible for all the acts of others. In contemplation of law, the act of the conspirator is the act of
each of them.3[23] Conspirators are one man, they breathe one breath, they speak one voice, they wield one arm and the law says that the acts, words and
declarations of each, while in the pursuit of the common design, are the acts, words and declarations of all.

Petitioner asserts that he is charged under the amended Information of bribery and illegal gambling and others. The Sandiganbayan, for its part, held that
petitioner is not charged with the predicate acts of bribery and illegal gambling but is charged only with one crime that of plunder:

According to the accused Estradas and Edward Serapio the information charges more than one offense, namely, bribery (Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code),
malversation of public funds or property (Article 217, Revised Penal Code) and violations of Sec. 3(e) of Republic Act (RA No. 3019) and Section 7(d) of RA 6713.

This contention is patently unmeritorious. The acts alleged in the information are not charged as separate offenses but as predicate acts of the crime of plunder.

It should be stressed that the Anti-Plunder law specifically Section 1(d) thereof does not make any express reference to any specific provision of laws, other than
R.A. No. 7080, as amended, which coincidentally may penalize as a separate crime any of the overt or criminal acts enumerated therein. The said acts which
form part of the combination or series of act are described in their generic sense. Thus, aside from malversation of public funds, the law also uses the generic
terms misappropriation, conversion or misuse of said fund. The fact that the acts involved may likewise be penalized under other laws is incidental. The said acts
are mentioned only as predicate acts of the crime of plunder and the allegations relative thereto are not to be taken or to be understood as allegations charging
separate criminal offenses punished under the Revised Penal Code, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employee.

Вам также может понравиться