CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
TITLE
GALVANTE vs CASIMIRO
Benedicto
Keywords: illegal search,
arbitrary detention, grave threats
PETITIONER to RESPONDENT
Case Filed: administrative case for
Grave Misconduct before the Internal
Affairs Service (IAS)AND criminal
case for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal
Search and Grave Threats, before
the Ombudsman
IAS: all private respondents guilty of
grave misconduct but penalized them
with suspension only
-they were merely enthusiastic in the
conduct of the arrest in line of duty.
FILED WITH THE RTC: Motion
for Preliminary Investigation and to
Hold in Abeyance the Issuance of or
Recall the Warrant of Arrest
RTC: granted the motion
Ombudsman Investigation &
Prosecuti0n Officer: DISMISS the
case for lack of probable cause
Deputy Ombudsman:
APPROVED
OSG: public respondents acted
within the bounds of their discretion in
dismissing given that private
respondents committed no crime in
searching petitioner and confiscating
his firearm as the former were merely
performing their duty of enforcing the
law against illegal possession of
firearms and the COMELEC ban
against the carrying of firearms
outside of one's residence
SC: ACQUITTED
FACTS
PROSECUTION:
May 14, 2001 Galvante left his house at around 1pm after
having lunch for Sitio Cahian, Agusan del Sur to meet
retired police Percival Plaza and inquire about the
retirement procedure for policemen
Upon arrival at the house of retired police Plaza, together
with Lorenzo Sanoria, Delfin Ramirez and
Pedro Ramas who asked for a ride from the highway in
going to Sitio Cahi-an, he immediately went down of the
jeep but before he could call Mr. Plaza, four policemen in
uniform blocked his way
The four policemen were herein respondents
PO1 Romil Avenido, PO1 Valentino Rufano, both
member of 142nd Company, Regional Mobile Group and
PO1 Eddie Degran and PO1 Federico Balolot members
of 1403 Provl Mobile Group, who all pointed their long
firearms ready to fire, having heard the sound of the
release of the safety lock
When petitioner raised his arms PO1 Avenido said, give
me your firearm, to which he answered, I have no firearm,
showing his waistline when he raised his T-shirt
The other companions on the jeep also went down and
raised their arms and showed their waistline when the
same policemen and a person in civilian attire holding
an armalite also pointed their firearms to them to which Mr.
Percival Plaza who came down from his house told them
not to harass Galvante as he was also a former police
officer but they did not heed Mr. Plaza's statements
SPO4 Benjamin Conde, Jr. went near the owner type
jeep and conducted a search. To which petitioner asked
them if they have any search warrant
Thereafter, they saw his super .38 pistol under the floor
mat of the jeep and asked him of the MR of the firearm but
due to fear that their long arms were still pointed to us,
Galvante searched his wallet and gave the document
Private respondents confiscated from petitioner one colt
pistol super .38 automatic with serial no. 67973, one short
magazine, and nine super .38 live ammunitions.
The policemen left them without saying anything bringing
with them the firearm
When Galvante left Mr. Percival's house and went
to Trento Police Station where he saw a person in civilian
attire with a revolver tucked on his waist, to which he
asked the police officers including those who searched his
jeep to apprehend him also
Nobody among the policemen at the station made a
move to apprehend the armed civilian person so he went
to the office of Police Chief Rocacorba who immediately
called the armed civilian to his office and when already
inside his office, the disarming was done
ISSUE
WON respondents are guilty of illegal search,
arbitrary detention and grave threats.
Petitioner filed an Affidavit of Desistance with
both the IAS and Ombudsman for the officers,
except for Conde.
Petitioner filed with the RTC a Motion for
Preliminary Investigation and to Hold in
Abeyance the Issuance of or Recall the Warrant
of Arrest
Ombudsman Investigation & Prosecution Officer
Garcia finds no probable cause for any of the
offenses charged against above-named
respondents. Stating that the incident
stemmed from a valid warrantless arrest and
dismissed the case
Filed an MR on the ground that.but was
DENIED
o earlier IAS Decision
o the Reinvestigation with Motion to Dismiss
of Prosecutor II Diaz, Jr.
o RTC Order, all of which declared
the warrantless search conducted by
private respondents illegal
PETITION (GAD-grave abuse of discretion)
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
HELD DOCTRINE
NO on all charges! The complaint
Conducting a search on his vehicle by the private for warrantless search charges no criminal
respondents without being armed with a valid warrant is not offense. The conduct of a warrantless search
covered by Articles 129 and 130 of the RPC. is not a criminal act for it is not penalized under
the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or any other
The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search special law. What the RPC punishes are only
conducted on his vehicle is civil (damages), under Article 32, two forms of searches:
in relation to Article 2219 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code:
Art. 129. Search warrants maliciously
o Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private obtained and abuse in the service of those
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, legally obtained.
violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the
following rights and liberties of another person shall be Art. 130. Searching domicile without
liable to the latter for damages: witnesses.
o (9) The right to be secure in ones person, house,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and Elements of arbitrary detention:
seizures; o the offender is a public officer or
o The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary employee
damages may also be adjudicated. o the offender detained the
Public respondents' dismissal of the criminal complaint for complainant
illegal search which petitioner filed with the Ombudsman o the detention is without legal
against private respondents was therefore proper. grounds.
Although the reasons public respondents cited for dismissing
the complaint are rather off the mark because they relied Such bare allegation that private respondents
solely on the finding that the warrantless search conducted by aimed their firearms at him stands no chance
private respondents was valid and that the Affidavit of against the well-entrenched rule applicable in
Desistance which petitioner executed cast doubt on the this case, that public officers enjoy
veracity of his complaint. a presumption of regularity in the
Public respondents completely overlooked the fact that the performance of their official function.
criminal complaint was not cognizable by the Ombudsman as
illegal search is not a criminal offense. Nevertheless, the
result achieved is the same: the dismissal of a groundless
criminal complaint for illegal search which is not an offense
under the RPC. Thus, the Court need not resolve the issue of
whether or not public respondents erred in their finding on the
validity of the search for that issue is completely hypothetical
under the circumstance.
The criminal complaint for abitrary detention was likewise
properly dismissed by public respondents.
o
the offender is a public officer or employee
o the offender detained the complainant
o the detention is without legal grounds.
The second element was not alleged by petitioner. As
pointed out by private respondent Conde in his Comment and
Memorandum, petitioner himself identified in his Affidavit-
Complaint that it was Police Chief Rocacorba who caused his
detention. Nowhere in said affidavit did petitioner allege that
private respondents effected his detention, or were in any
other way involved in it. There was, therefore, no factual or
1

RESPONDENT to
PETITIONER:
Case Filed: Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunitions in
Relation to Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) Resolution before the
RTC
GEROCHE vs PEOPLE
Benedicto
Keywords: airgun, admission of
public officers, double jeopardy
Case filed: Violation of Domicile
under Art 128
RTC: GUILTY of Less Serious
Physical Injuries
- prosecution failed to prove that
petitioners are public officers,
which is an essential element of
Article 128 of the RPC
- prosecution who has that onus
After disarming the civilian Galvante was put to jail with
the said person by Police Chief Rocacorba and was
released only at 4pm of May 16, 2001 after posting
a bailbond
Consequently, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed
against petitioner an Information for Illegal Possession of
Firearms and Ammunitions in Relation to COMELEC
Resolution RTC.
Petitioner filed against private respondents an
administrative case for Grave Misconduct, before the
Internal Affairs Service (IAS), Region XIII, Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG) and a criminal case
for Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Search and Grave Threats,
before the Ombudsman.
In the June 21, 2001 Affidavit-Complaint he filed in both
cases, petitioner narrated how, on May 14, 2001, private
respondents aimed their long firearms at him, arbitrarily
searched his vehicle and put him in detention.
DEFENSE:
CONDE: He had nothing to do with the detention of
petitioner as it was Chief of Police/Officer-in-Charge
Police Inspector Dioscoro Mehos Rocacorba who
ordered the detention. He also denies searching
petitioner's vehicle, but admits that even though he
was not armed with a warrant, he searched the
person of petitioner as the latter, in plain view, was
committing a violation of COMELEC Resolution by
carrying a firearm in his person
AVENIDO, DEGRAN, RUFANO, BALOLOT:
they saw Feleciano Nani Galvante armed with a
handgun/pistol tucked on his waist; that the statement
was not accurate because the said handgun was
taken by SP04 Conde acting as the team leader from
Galvantes jeep after searching the same.
PROSECUTION:
Baleriano testified that the crime happened
around 10pm of May 14, 1989 inside the
house which he already bought from Roberto
Mallo. He roused from sleep when petitioners,
who were not armed with search warrant,
suddenly entered the house by destroying the
main door. The petitioners mauled him,
striking with a garand rifle, which caused his
injuries. They looked for firearms but instead
found and took away his airgun. Roberto
Limbag, Balerianos nephew who was living
with him, witnessed the whole incident and
corroborated his testimony.
WON petitioners are considered public officers
and can be held liable for Violation of Domicile.
RTC: guilty of Less Serious Physical Injuries
CA: Petitioners elevated the case to the CA,
which set aside the trial courts judgment.
While it agreed with both parties that
petitioners should not be convicted for Less
Serious Physical Injuries, the CA still ruled that
they are guilty of Violation of Domicile
considering their judicial admissions that they
were barangay captain (in the case of
Geroche) and part of the Citizen Armed Forces
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
legal basis to sustain the criminal charge for arbitrary detention
against private respondents.
On the grave threats, the Solicitor General aptly pointed out that the
same is based merely on petitioner's bare allegation that private
respondents aimed their firearms at him. Such bare allegation
stands no chance against the well-entrenched rule applicable in this
case, that public officers enjoy a presumption of regularity in
the performance of their official function. The IAS itself observed
that private respondents may have been carried away by
their enthusiasm in the conduct of the arrest in line of duty. Petitioner
expressed the same view when, in his Affidavit of Desistance, he
accepted that private respondents may have been merely following
orders when they pointed their long firearms at him.
When petitioners appealed the trial courts judgment of Petitioners could not have been placed
conviction for Less Serious Physical Injuries, they are twice in jeopardy when the CA set
deemed to have abandoned their right to invoke the aside the ruling of the RTC by finding
prohibition on double jeopardy since it becomes the duty them guilty of Violation of Domicile as
of the appellate court to correct errors as may be found in charged in the Information instead of
the assailed judgment. Petitioners could not have been Less Serious Physical Injuries.
placed twice in jeopardy when the CA set aside the ruling
of the RTC by finding them guilty of Violation of Domicile
The Court adopts the findings of fact
as charged in the Information instead of Less Serious
and conclusions of law of the CA.
Physical Injuries.
Accused did not deny that they are
public officers, thus, in holding such
The Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of positions, they are considered as public
law of the CA. In their testimony before the open court as officers/employees under the law.
well as in the pleadings they filed, neither Geroche denied
that he was a barangay captain nor Garde and Marfil
2

probandi failed to prove one of
the essential elements of the
crime
-on the issue of whether or not
all the accused were public
officers; while it is true that
accused were named CVOs
and the other as a barangay
captain and that even if the
same were admitted by them
during their testimony in open
court, such an admission is not
enough to prove that they were
public officers; it is for the
prosecution to prove by clear
and convincing evidence other
than that of the testimony of
witnesses that they were in fact
public officers; there exist a
doubt of whether or not all the
accused were in fact and in truth
public officers; doubts should be
ruled in favor of the accused
CA: SET ASIDE RTC Decision
NOT Less Serious Phy. Injuries
but Violation of Domicile
- guilty of Violation of Domicile
considering their judicial
admissions that they were
barangay captain(Geroche) and
part of the Citizen Armed Forces
Geographical Unit (Garde and
Marfil).
SC: AFFIRM CA
Medical Findings: suffered
hematoma on the left side of the
nose, back portion of the body at
the level of the hip region, and
back portion at the right side of
the scapular region as well as
abrasion on the right side of the
breast and left side of the body
at the axilliary region. Dr.
Cabrera opined that the injuries
inflicted would heal from 7 to 10
days
LADLAD VS VELASCO
Duguil
Prosecution also presented SPO4 Felomino
Calfoforo, the Subpoena and Warrant Officer
of President Roxas Police Station who
testified on the police blotter, Dr. Antonio
Cabrera also took the witness stand for the
prosecution.
Essentially, he affirmed the medical certificate
that he issued. His findings indicated that
Baleriano suffered hematoma on the left side
of the nose, back portion of the body at the
level of the hip region, and back portion at the
right side of the scapular region as well as
abrasion on the right side of the breast and
left side of the body at the axilliary region. Dr.
Cabrera opined that the injuries inflicted would
heal from 7 to 10 days.
DEFENSE:
Petitioners denied the crime charged,
declaring in unison that they were in their
respective houses the entire evening of the
incident. They alleged, however, that the night
before, on May 13, 1989, they conducted a
roving footpatrol, together with other barangay
officials, due to the rampant cattle rustling in
the area. At the time, they recovered a stolen
carabao owned by a certain Francisco
Pongasi from three unidentified persons who
managed to escape
- Consolidated petitioners for the writs of
prohibition and certiorari to enjoin petitioners
Geographical Unit (in the case of Garde and
Marfil).
MR: Petitioners filed MR and was denied
They argue that there is double jeopardy since
the trial court already acquitted them of
Violation of Domicile and such judgment, being
now final and executory, is res judicata.
Petitioners insist that their appeal before the
CA is limited to their conviction for the crime of
Less Serious Physical Injuries, focusing their
arguments and defense for acquittal from said
crime, and that the CA violated their
constitutional right to due process when it
convicted them for Violation of Domicile.
1. W/N the inquest proceeding against
Beltran was
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
refuted that they were CAFGU members. In holding such
positions, they are considered as public
officers/employees.
As to the penalty imposed by the CA, however, We modify
the same. Under Article 128 of the RPC, the penalty shall
be prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods (two [2] years, four [4] months and one [1] day to
six [6] years) if Violation of Domicile be committed at
nighttime or if any papers or effects not constituting
evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after
the search made by the offender. In this case,
petitioners barged in the house of Baleriano while they
were sleeping at night and, in addition, they took away
with them his airgun.
In imposing a prison sentence for an offense punished by
the RPC, the Indeterminate Sentence Law requires courts
to impose upon the accused an indeterminate sentence.
The maximum term of the prison sentence shall be that
which, in view of the attending circumstances, could be
properly imposed under the rules of the said Code. Yet
the penalty prescribed by Article 128 of the RPC is
composed of only two, not three, periods. In which case,
Article 65 of the same Code requires the division into three
equal portions the time included in the penalty, forming
one period of each of the three portions. Applying the
provision, the minimum, medium and maximum periods of
the penalty prescribed by Article 128 are:
Minimum 2 years, 4 months and 1 day to 3 years, 6
months and 20 days
Medium 3 years, 6 months and 21 days to 4 years, 9
months and 10 days
Maximum 4 years, 9 months and 11 days to 6 years
ON THE BELTRAN PETITION REBELLION - [B]y rising publicly and
taking arms against the Government for
3
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON

prosecution for REBELLION and to set aside the a. Valid? The inquest proceeding against Beltran for Rebellion the purpose of removing from the
KEYWORDS: REBELLION, rulings of the DOJ and RTC b. PC to indict Beltran for is VOID allegiance to said Government or its
INCITING TO SEDITION - GR175013 - Beltran, Maza, Viardor, Ocampo, Rebellion? - Inquest proceedings are proper only when the laws, the territory of the
Casino and Mariano = Members of the HR W/N the respondent prosecutors should be accused has been lawfully arrested without a warrant Republic of the Philippines or any part
BELTRAN CASE representing various party-list groups enjoined from continuing with the prosec of - The joint affidavit of Beltrans arresting officer states thereof, or any body of land, naval, or
CASE FILED: - GR 172070-72 private individuals Crim Case 06-944 that Beltran was arrested without warrant, for inciting other
- BELTRAN inciting to to sedition and not rebellion armed forces or depriving the Chief
sedition (Art142) THE BELTRAN PETITION - Thus, the inquest prosecutor could only have Executive or the Legislature, wholly or
- SAN JUAN Rebellion - GMA issued a state of National Emergency conducted, as he did conduct, an inquest for Inciting partially, of any of their powers or
- Police officers arrested Beltran while he was to Sedition and no other prerogatives. HT
- DOJ PANEL enroute to Camp, Crame arrested without - The 2nd inquest for rebellion against beltran void SaEC
o Issued resolution warrant and X informed of the crime for which he o None of the Beltrans arresting officers saw The elements of the offense are:
finding was arrested Beltran commit in their presence the crime 1. That there be a (a) public uprising
PROBABLE - Beltran was subjected to inquest for Inciting to of Rebellion and (b) taking arms against the
CAUSE to indict Sedition (Art 142) based on the speech he gave o No personal knowledge of the facts and Government; and
Beltran and San during a rally in QC on Feb 24, 2006 on the circumstances sufficient to form a PC 2. That the purpose of the uprising or
Juan as occasion of the 20th anniversary of the EDSA o What they alleged is that they saw Beltran movement is either
leaders/promoter revolution making a seditious speech (a) to remove from the allegiance to
s of Rebellion - Inquest = based on joint affidavit of arresting - Beltrans panel of inquest prosecutors failed to said Government or its laws:
officers who claimed to be present at the rally comply with Sect 7, Rule 11 in relation to Sect 5, (1) the territory of the Philippines or any
RTC - Prosecutor indicted Beltran and filed information Rule 113 and DOJ circular No. 61 part thereof; or
- sustained the finding of with the MTC of QC (2) any body of land, naval, or other
probable cause against - Authorities brought him back to Camp Campre There is No Probable Cause to Indict Beltran for armed forces; or
Beltran 2nd inquest Rebellion (b) to deprive the Chief Executive or
- San Juan (1st Lieutenant) rebellion - Generally, the SC does not interfere with the Congress, wholly or partially, of
OSG - The inquest was based on 2 letters from Mendoza prosecutors determination of PC any of their powers and prerogatives.
- Claims that Beltrans and Tanigue (CIDG & PNP) stating that San Juan - E: Where the prosecutor abused his discretion by
inquest for Rebellion was and several others are leaders and promoters of an ignoring a clear insufficiency of evidence case at
valid alleged plot to overthrow the Arroyo government bar
- RTC Makati correctly found that the plot was supposed to be carried out by the - Thus, by its nature, rebellion is a crime of the masses
probable cause members of the Communist Party and or multitudes involving crowd action done in
Makabayang Kawal ng Pilipinas (MKP) furtherance of a political end
THE MAZA AND LADLAD - DOJ PANEL - None of the affidavits mention Beltran except for 2
PETITIONS o Issued resolution finding PROBABLE - In his affidavit, Escala recounted that in the afternoon
CAUSE to indict Beltran and San Juan of 20 February 2006, he saw Beltran, Ocampo, Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
DOJ PANEL as leaders/promoters of Rebellion Casio, Maza, Mariano, Virador, and other A peace officer or a private person
- Found probable cause to o Filed an information with the RTC Makati individuals on board a vehicle which entered a may,
charge petitoners and 46 - Case was raffled to Judge Delorino chicken farm in Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas and without a warrant, arrest a person:
others with - Beltran moved that Branch 137 make a judicial that after the passengers alighted, they were met by (a) When, in his presence, the person
- REBELLION determination of probable cause but case was another individual who looked like San Juan. For his to be arrested has committed, is
re-raffled again to Judge Moya part, Cachuela stated that he was a former member actually
OSG - RTC of the CPP and that (1) he attended the CPP's "10th committing, or is attempting to commit
- PI was not tainted with o sustained the finding of probable cause Plenum" in 1992 where he saw Beltran; (2) he took an offense;
irregularities against Beltran part in criminal activities; and (3) the arms he and the (b) When an offense has just been
- SG claims that filing of o Filed MR but Judge Moya inhibited other CPP members used were purchased partly committed and he has probable cause
Crim case 06-944 mooted herself from contributions by Congressional members, like to
the Maza petition o Re-raffled to Judge Alameda Beltran, who represent party-list groups affiliated with believe based on personal knowledge
- Hence the petition to set aside the orders the CPP. of facts or circumstances that the
- OSG - But the ALLEGATIONS IN THE AFFIDAVIT ARE person to
SC: o Claims that Beltrans inquest for FAR FROM PROOF most that it can prove is that be arrested has committed it; and
- BELTRAN PETITION Rebellion was valid Beltran was in Batangas xxx xxx xxx
o The inquest o RTC Makati correctly found probable - None of the affidavits stated that Beltran committed In cases falling under paragraphs (a)

4
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON

proceeding cause specific acts of promoting, maintaining, or heading a and (b) above, the person arrested
against Beltran rebellion as found in the DOJ Resolution of 27 without a
for Rebellion is THE MAZA AND LADLAD PETITIONS February 2006. None of the affidavits alleged that warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
VOID - Based on Tanigue and Mendozas letters the - Beltran is a leader of a rebellion. Beltran's alleged the nearest police station or jail and
o There is No DOJ sent subpoenas to petitoners requiring them presence during the 1992 CPP Plenum shall
Probable Cause to appear before the DOJ - does not automatically make him a leader of a be proceeded against in accordance
to Indict Beltran - Prior to receipt of the subpoenas, the petitoners rebellion. with section 7 of Rule 112.
for Rebellion quartered themselved inside the HR building for - Mere membership in the CPP DOES NOT constitute
o none of the fear of being subjected to warrantless arrest rebellion Where Arrest Not Properly Effected.
affidavits alleges - During the PI counsel for the CIDG presented - Cachuela merely alleged that "ang mga ibang mga Should the Inquest Officer find that the
that Beltran is Fuentes (masked man) who claims to be an pondo namin ay galing sa mga party list na naihalal arrest was not made in accordance
promoting, eyewitness sa Kongreso tulad ng BAYAN MUNA - pimumunuan with the Rules, he shall:
maintaining, or - Petitoners moved for inhibition of members of the nila SATUR OCAMPO at CRISPIN BELTRAN a) recommend the release of the
heading a prosec panel for lack of impartiality and DOES NOT ESTABLISH PC person arrested or detained;
Rebellion. independence considering the political miliey under - Fuentes affidavit was not part of the attachements b) note down the disposition on the
o However, the which the petitoners were investigated and the the CIDG referred to the DOJ referral document;
Information infact media DOJ panel denied - Assuming them to be true, what the allegations in c) prepare a brief memorandum
merely charges - Petitioners sought recon and dismissal denied Fuentes' affidavit make out is a case for Conspiracy indicating the reasons for the action
Beltran for - DOJ Panel to Commit Rebellion, punishable under Article 136 of taken; and
"conspiring and o issued a resolution finding PROBABLE the Revised Penal Code, not Rebellion under Article d) forward the same, together with the
confederating" CAUSE to charge petitoners and 46 134. Attendance in meetings to discuss, among record of the case, to the City or
with others in others with REBELLION others, plans to bring down a government is a mere Provincial Prosecutor for appropriate
forming a o Prosecutors filed information with RTC preparatory step to commit the acts constituting action.
"tactical alliance" makati charging petitoners and co- Rebellion under Article 134
to commit accused as principals, masterminds or Probable cause - "existence of such
rebellion. As heads of a Rebellion LADLAD AND MAZA PETITONS facts and circumstances as would
worded, the - OSG excite the belief in a reasonable mind,
Information does o PI was not tainted with irregularities The PI was tainted with irregularities acting on the facts within the
not charge SG claims that filing of Crim case 06-944 mooted the - Instead of following this procedure scrupulously, as knowledge of the prosecutor, that the
Beltran with Maza petition what this Court had mandated in an earlier ruling, "so person charged was guilty of the crime
Rebellion but that the constitutional right to liberty of a potential for which he was prosecuted."
with Conspiracy accused can be protected from any material
to Commit damage," respondent prosecutors nonchalantly
Rebellion, a disregarded it. Respondent prosecutors failed to
bailable offense comply with Section 3(a) of Rule 112 which provides
that the complaint (which, with its attachment, must
LADLAD AND MAZA be of such number as there are respondents) be
PETITONS accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and
- The PI was tainted with his witnesses, subscribed and sworn to before any
irregularities prosecutor or government official authorized to
- On Respondent administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability,
Prosecutors Lack of before a notary public.
Impartiality
On Respondent Prosecutors Lack of Impartiality
- "We [the DOJ] will just declare probable cause, then
it's up to the C]ourt to decide . . .

This clearly shows a pre-judgment, a determination to file

GONZALES VS ABAYA - In relation to the celebrated Oakwood mutiny
Duguil where a total of 321 soldiers including petitioners
herein declared their withdrawal of support to
W/N Coup detat can absorb violation of
articles of war? NO!
the information even in the absence of PC
NO! X ABSORB!
- In short, the charge has a bearing on their
5

KEYWORDS: OAKWOOD
MUTINY, COUP, ARTICLES OF
WAR, X ABSORB
CASE FILED:
- coup d'etat RTC
- Articles of War Military
courts
Pre-Trial Investigation Panel
- Applied the doctrine of
absorption of coup detat
- Should not be charged
before Military tribunal for
AW
RTC
- All charges in the court
martial are not service-
connected ABSROBED
in furtherance of coup
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
the Commander-in-chief professional conduct or behavior as military officers.
- President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declared a Equally indicative of the "service-connected" nature
state of rebellion and ordered the arrest of the of the offense is the penalty prescribed for the same
said soldiers. dismissal from the service imposable only by
- In order to avoid a bloody confrontation, the Garcia Notes: the military court
government sent negotiators to dialogue with the - Coup d etat = X absorb violation of - The RTC, in making such declaration, practically
soldiers. After several hours of negotiation, the articles of war amended the law which expressly vests in the court
government panel succeeded in convincing them - Must be filed in the same court martial the jurisdiction over "service-connected
to lay down their arms and defuse the explosives o Here it is the RTC Makati for crimes or offenses.
placed around the premises of the Oakwood coup - The trial court aggravated its error when it justified its
Apartments. Eventually, they returned to their o Military Court violations of ruling by holding that the charge of Conduct
barracks. Articles of War Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman is absorbed
- The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) - Must be punished by the same penal and in furtherance to the alleged crime of coup d'etat.
o investigated the incident and statute - Firstly, the doctrine of absorption of crimes' is
recommended that the military personnel Violation of articles of war is sui-generis. It peculiar to criminal law and generally applies to
involved be charged with coup d'etat cannot be asorbed by other crimes crimes punished by the same statute, unlike here
defined and penalized under Article 134- where different statutes are involved. Secondly, the
A of the Revised Penal Code, as doctrine applies only if the trial court has jurisdiction
amended. over both offenses.
- The Chief State Prosecutor of the Department - Here, Section 1 of R.A. 7055 deprives civil courts of
of Justice (DOJ) jurisdiction over service-connected offenses,
o recommended the filing of the including Article 96 of the Articles of War. Thus, the
corresponding Information against them. doctrine of absorption of crimes is not applicable to
- Respondent General Narcisco Abaya (AFP Chief of this case.
Staff)
o Pursuant to Art 70 of the Articles of War
ordered the arrest and detention of the
soldiers involved and directed to AFP to
conduct its own separate investigation
- DOJ
o filed case with RTC Makati and
information for coup
- RTC
o directed DOJ to conduct reinvestigation
of criminal case
- Army Chief of Staff
o issued Letter Order No 625
o Created Pre-Trial Investigation Panel
taksed to determine propriety o filing with
military tribunal charges for Articles of
War
- Pre-Trial Investigation Panel
o Applied the doctrine of absorption of
coup detat
o Should not be charged before Military
tribunal for AW
- RTC
o All charges in the court martial are not
service- connected ABSROBED in
furtherance of coup
- Officer in charge of JAGO
o Reviewed findings of Pre-Trial
6
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON

investigation Pane
o Recommended that 29 of the officers
involved be prosecutor for violation of Art
96 (conduct unbecoming of an officer
and a gentleman) of the Articles of War
Approved by AFP
- AFP Judge Advocate General
o Directed petitioners to submit their
answer but X file anser
o Filed with the SC petition for prohibition

PEOPLE VS ESTONILO - Carlos Sr., Rey, Edel, Nonong, Bulldog, Nonoy, W/N GUILTY BRD OF COMPLEX CRIME OF YES! GUILTY! To successfully prosecute the crime of
Duguil Titing, Gali and Negro MULTIPLE MURDER WITH DIRECT murder, the following elements must be
7

KEYWORDS:
- Mission accomplished sir,
big picture of cortero, no
name of mayor carlos
- District supervisor of Public
Schools of Masbate
CASE FILED:
- Complex Crime of Murder
with Direct Assault (Art
148)
RTC:
- Complex Crime of Murder
with Direct Assault
CA:
- AFFIRM
- RP indivisible penalty
Moved for MR
SC:
- AFFIRM
Medico-Legal Finding:
- Floro sustained gunshot
wounds caused by more
than 1 firearm based on the
sizes of the slugs
recovered and that some of
them were fired at close
range
In short:
Floro invited to house of
Mayor showed Mayor
program picture of Cortero
was super big + Mayors name
was not there Mayor got mad
Following day he was killed in
the school
- Deceased FLORO = District supervisor of Public
Schools of Masbate (PA)
- Prosecution presented 9 witnesses
TESTIMONY OF FELIX (son of deceased)
- April 4 - Day before his father (Floro) was gunned
down he was with some teachers at the Celeria
Inoncencia Elementary School in Masbate
working on the closing ceremonies to be held the
following day
- Morales called on Floro and told him that Mayor
Carlos, Sr. (accusd) wanted to see him
- Floro and Felix went to see Mayor Carlos Floro
showed the Mayor a program of the celebration of
the Federation of the 7th Day Adventist that
contained the names of the gov, congressman and
placer mayoralty candidate COTERO
- He asked father why picture of Cotero was so big
and Mayor Carlos names was not mentioned in the
program replied that he cannot help it because
Cotero aid for the program
- Mayor Carlos got mad and scolded Floro
SERAPION
- While he was printing yhe name of Municipal
Councilar Candidate Dela Pisa on the street facing
the Celera Elementary School --> he heard
GUNSHOTS coming from inside the compound of
the school
- Saw more or less 6 persons coming out of the
school identified 3 of them in the courtroom
(Edel, Nonoy and Nonong)
- Saw the se men approach Mayor Carlos vehicle
which was near the school
- Heard Nonoy say Mission, accomplished sir
ANTIPOLO TESTIMONY (DIRECT EVIDENCE)
- Riding a motorcycle and passing by the gate of the
school
- Eyewitness to the crime
- Heard gunshots and someone shouted that Floro
was shot
- Saw 4 persons holding short firearms (Nonoy and
Negro)
- Gali (accused) shouted sir, thats enough escape!
- Mayor Carlos said leave it because its already
dead
ELSAS TESTIMONY
- Testified as to motive for killing of Floro
- Testified that there are some people who were
jealous of Floros position because he could bring
ASSAULT
Defense:
Some of the testimonies of the prosecution
witness constitute circumstancial evidence and
that the prosec was not able prove their guilty
beyond reasonable doubt
- MURDER WAS ESTABLISHED
- rd
COMPLEX CRIM E OF MURDER WITH DIRECT
ASSAULT
- Committed 2nd kind of assault
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
- Court found no indication that the troal and the CA established:
overlooked or failed to appreciate facts that would 1. that a person was killed;
change the outcome of the case 2. That the accused killed him
- Did not err in giving credence to the testimonies of or her;
the prosec witnesses 3. that the killing was attended
- Antipolos testimony did not suffer from any serious by any of the qualifying
and material inconsistence that could possibly detract circumstances mentioned in
from credibility Article 248 of the Revised
- He identified the accused-appellant Nonoy and Penal Code; and
accused Negro as those who fired at Floro about 4. that the killing is not parricide
seven times, while accused-appellants Edel and or infanticide.
Nonong were on standby also holding their firearms.
He also witnessed accused Gali shouting to the
gunmen to stop and escape. He narrated that after all COMPLEX CRIM E OF MURDER
the accused left, Mayor Carlos, Sr., Rey and WITH DIRECT ASSAULT
Materdam arrived aboard the mayor's vehicle. He Elements:
also heard Mayor Carlos said "leave it because it's 1. There must be an attack, use
already dead." From his direct and straightforward of force or serious
testimony, there is no doubt as to the identity of the intimidation or resistance
culprits. upon a PA or his agent
2. The assault was made when
1. Floro was killed the person was performing
2. Ex-Mayor Carlos, Rey, Edel, Nonong, and his duties or on the occasion
Calvin were 5 of 9 perpetrators of such performance and
3. The killing was attended with AC of EP as 3. The accused knew that the
testified by witnesses as well as treachery victim is a person in authority
4. Killing of Floro was neither parricide nor or his agent the accused
infanticide must have the intention to
- 2nd Element established offend, injure, assault the
o There is motive to kill offended party as a PA or
o Floro supported Cortero reys opponent agent of PA
for mayor
o Planned to kills Floro on 2 separate
occasions Ipatumba si Floro; plotting to
kill
o Antipolo eyewitness the killing
corroborated by Serapion
o mission accomplished sir
- Consists of both direct and circumstancial evidence
3 element
o There is treachery
o Successively fired, no means to defend
himself, shot at a lose distance, without risk
to themselves, had lookouts
- 2 modes of commiting this under Art 148 of the RPC
- Elements:
1. There must be an attack, use of force or serious
intimidation or resistance upon a PA or his
8
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON

voters to his side during election time agent

2. The assault was made when the person was
ROSALINDA performing his duties or on the occasion of such
- Mayor Carlos went to her house and to her that he performance and
would kill her husband following Floro 3. The accused knew that the victim is a person in
authority or his agent the accused must have
SERVANDO the intention to offend, injure, assault the
- He was in the house of the Mayor Carlos say offended party as a PA or agent of PA
impatuba si Floro Casas - Floro was the duly appointed District Supervisor of
- Bodyguard Public Schools in Masbate = PA
- But contrary to the statement that there was DA just
Daming witness because Floro was a PA this court clarifies that the
finding of DA is based on the FACT THAT THE
DEFENSE OF MAYOR CARLOS ATTACK OR ASSAULT ON FLORO, WAS IN
- He and floro are close friends REALITY MADE BY REASON OF THE
- He learned that he and his son were suspects in PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY AS DISTRICT
Floros killing 5 months after the incident SUPERVISOR
- Confirmed that he was with Rey and Dela Cruz - When the assault results in the killing of that agent or
while inquiring about the shooting at the school of a person in authority for that matter, there arises
- Denied meeting Felix, Rosalinda or that Servando the complex crime of direct assault with murder or
was his bodyguard homicide.

DEFENSE OF REY
- He was in his house planning to Campaign
passed by Celera Elementary School saw
fathers car proceeded to meet the counselors
in Ranios house all went to Barangay
Matagantang
- Expressed that this criminal case may be politically
motivated because he won as mayor

QUIRINO
He and his family were having dinner at their house near
school heard gunshorts peeped thru the fence

NONONG
- Engaged in drinking spree in Nining Berdidas
house and stayed there until 11 pm

EDEL
- Rey called him to go to Ranios house in Masbate
- Denied being a boyguard of Mayor

BULLDOG
- He was with his wife attending a birthday party
near Celera Elementary school went to school to
check on what happened and learned that Floro
was shot
Denied being a boyguard of Mayor
SYDECO VS PEOPLE PROSECUTIONS VERSION W/N petitioner is guilty NO! Art. 151. Resistance and
Duguil disobedience to a person in
9
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON

- Aguilar, Bondino, Cruz and another office were - CA erred in upholding the presumption of regularity in authority or the agents of such
KEYWORD: Drunk driving, manning checkpoint on Roxas Boulevard the performance of duties by the police officer person. The penalty of arresto
ford ranger, resistance and - Spotted a sewering red Ford Ranger Pick up from - CA erred in giving weight to the med cert by Dr. in the mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
disobedience to PA, 55 yrs old 20m away absence of testimony before the court pesos shall be imposed upon any
- The team members flagged the vehicle down and - Peace officers and traffic enforcers, like other public person who not being included
asked petitioner to alight from the vehicle officials and employees are bound to discharge their in the provisions of the preceding
- Petitioner denied being drunk and insisted that he duties with prudence, caution and attention, which articles shall resist or seriously
CASE FILED: 2 separate could manage to drive careful men usually exercise in the management of disobey any person in authority, or
informations - In a raised void said, PI mo, bakit mo ko hinuhuli! their own affairs. the agents of such person, while
- Violation of Section 56(f) of - Policemen arrested the petitioner who put up - Police officers = X regularly performing duties Did engaged in the performance of
RA 4136 drunk driving resistance police was eventually able to subdue not demand the presentation of the drivers license or official duties; When the disobedience
- Resistance and him brought to the Ospital ng Maynila where he issue any ticket or similar citation paper for traffic to an agent of a person
disobedience to a PA or was examined and found positive of alcoholic violation as required by SEC 29 OF RA 4136 in authority is not of a serious nature,
the agents of such person breath - Instead of requiring the vehicle occupant to answer the penalty of arresto menor or a fine
(Art 151) the routinary questions said foul words ranging from 10 to 100 pesos shall be
DEFENSE VERSION - Swerving is not necessarily indicative of imprudent imposed upon the offender.
- Claimed to be a victim in the incident in question behavior let alone constitutive of reckless driving
MTC - Filed criminal charges for PI, robbery and arbitrary - To constitute the offense of reckless driving, the act
- GUILTY detention against policemen must be something more than a mere negligence in
- Petitioner said that he together with a cook and the operation of a motor vehicle, and a willful and
RTC: waitress were on their way home from their wanton disregard of the consequences is required.
- AFFIRMED restaurant in Macapagal Ave Nothing in the records indicate that the area was a
- Failure to testify of doctor is - They were stopped by the police flashlights "no swerving or overtaking zone." Moreover, the
not fatal trained on side of the bechicle swerving incident, if this be the case, occurred at
- Under ROC, observations - Policemen asked him to get down the car but he around 3:00 a.m. when the streets are usually clear
of the police officers just opened the window and said plain view lang of moving vehicles and human
regarding petitioners state boss, plain view lang. traffic, and the danger to life, limb and property to
of drunkenness would - Policeman got irked and accused him of being third persons is minimal.
suffice (PRESUMPTION drunk pointing at the 3 cases of empty beer bottles
OF REGULARLITY OF in the trunk of the vehicle explained that it came ART 151
PERFORMANCE OF from his restaurant - The two key elements of resistance and serious
POLICE OFFICERS) - Policemen boxed him on the mouth, poked a gun disobedience punished under Art. 151 of the RPC
at his head and blurted PI mo, gusto mo tapusin are:
CA: na kita dito marami ka pang sinasabi 1. That a person in authority or his agent is
- AFFIRMED - Policemen pulled him out of the car and pushed engaged in the performance of official duty or
him into a mobile car whereupon he asked his gives a lawful order to the offender; and
SC: companions to call his wife 2. That the offender resists or seriously disobeys
- REVERSED - Brought him to ospital ng Maynila but no such person or his agent.
- NOT GUILTY alchocol breath test was done because he refused - Petitioners act of exercising ones right against
- Police officers = X regularly but the doctor still issued a med cert unreasonable searches and seizures in the middle of
performing duty - Detained at 3 am (June 12) and released June 13 the night cannot be equated to disobience let alone
- Accuseds act of exercising - Medical Examination before release showed that resisting a lawful order in contemplated in Art 151
ones right is NOT equal to he suffered PI and no alcohol breath - There is nothing in RA 4136 authorizing the check-
disobedience - Also stated that the procedure for dealing with point mannig polce to order petitioner and his
- X lawful order of police traffic violation is not to arrest the driver but to companions to get out of the vehicle for search
officer confiscate the license only - No reasonable suspicion of the occurrence of stop
and frisk action
- Dragged the accused out of the vehicle instead of
asking him nicely
- In case of doubt as the moral certainty of culpability,
the balance tops in favor of innocent or at least in
favor of milder form of criminal liability

10

CESARIO URSUA vs CA
Melgar
Keywords: DENR officer
(petitioner) signed log book at
Office of the Ombudsman not
using his name but name of
messenger (of his counsels law
firm) to get a copy of complaint
(against him)
Charged of: violation of Sec. 1
of C.A. No. 142 Anti-Alias Law
as amended by R. A. No. 6085
RTC: guilty
CA: affirmed
SC: ACQUITTED; the use of a
fictitious name or a different
name belonging to another
person in a single instance
without any sign or indication
that the user intends to be
known by this name in addition
to his real name from that day
forth does NOT fall within the
prohibition contained in C.A. No.
142 as amended; not public, not
habitual
PROSECUTION:
Ursua was a Community Environment and Natural
Resources Officer assigned in Kidapawan,
Cotabato.
In 1989 the Provincial Governor of Cotabato
requested the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct
an investigation on a complaint for bribery,
dishonesty, abuse of authority and giving of
unwarranted benefits by petitioner and other
officials of the DENR, based on the complaint
initiated by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Cotabato through a resolution advising the
Governor to report the involvement of petitioner
and others in the illegal cutting of mahogany trees
and hauling of illegally-cut logs in the area
Atty. Palmones then wrote the Office of the
Ombudsman in Davao City requesting that he be
furnished copy of the complaint against petitioner.
He then asked his client Ursua to take his letter-
request to the Office of the Ombudsman because
his law firms messenger, Oscar Perez, had to
attend to some personal matters.
Before proceeding to the Office of the Ombudsman
petitioner talked to the messenger-Perez and told
him that he was reluctant to personally ask for the
document since he was one of the respondents
before the Ombudsman.
However, Perez advised him not to worry as he
could just sign his (Perez) name if ever he would
be required to acknowledge receipt of the
complaint.
When petitioner arrived at the Office of the
Ombudsman in Davao City he was instructed by
the security officer to register in the visitors
logbook. Instead of writing down his name
petitioner wrote the name Oscar Perez after
which he was told to proceed to the
Administrative Division for the copy of the
complaint he needed.
He handed the letter of Atty. Palmones to the Chief
of the Administrative Division, Ms. Loida
Kahulugan, who then gave him a copy of the
complaint, receipt of which he acknowledged by
writing the name Oscar Perez
Before petitioner could leave the premises he was
greeted by an acquaintance, Josefa Amparo, who
also worked in the same office. They conversed for
W/N Petitioner is guilty of violating Sec. 1 of
C.A. No. 142 Anti-Alias Law as amended by
R. A. No. 6085
Ursuas contention:
He never used any alias name; neither is
Oscar Perez his alias.
An alias, according to him, is a term
which connotes the habitual use of
another name by which a person is also
known.
He claims that he has never been known
as Oscar Perez and that he only used
such name on one occasion and it was
with the express consent of Oscar Perez
himself. It is his position that an essential
requirement for a conviction under C.A.
No. 142 as amended by R. A. No. 6085
has not been complied with when the
prosecution failed to prove that his
supposed alias was different from his
registered name in the Registry of Births.
He further argues that the Court of
Appeals erred in not considering the
defense theory that he was charged
under the wrong law.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
NO! Clearly therefore an alias is a name or names used
by a person or intended to be used by him publicly and
habitually usually in business transactions in addition to
his real name by which he is registered at birth or baptized
the first time or substitute name authorized by a
competent authority. A mans name is simply the sound or
sounds by which he is commonly designated by his
fellows and by which they distinguish him but sometimes a
man is known by several different names and these are
known as aliases.
Hence, the use of a fictitious name or a different name
belonging to another person in a single instance without
any sign or indication that the user intends to be known by
this name in addition to his real name from that day forth
does not fall within the prohibition contained in C.A. No.
142 as amended. This is so in the case at bench.
It is not disputed that petitioner introduced himself in the
Office of the Ombudsman as Oscar Perez, which was the
name of the messenger of his lawyer who should have
brought the letter to that office in the first place instead of
petitioner. He did so while merely serving the request of
his lawyer to obtain a copy of the complaint in which
petitioner was a respondent. There is no question then
that Oscar Perez is not an alias name of petitioner. There
is no evidence showing that he had used or was intending
to use that name as his second name in addition to his
real name.
The use of the name Oscar Perez was made by petitioner
in an isolated transaction where he was not even legally
required to expose his real identity. For, even if he had
identified himself properly at the Office of the
Ombudsman, petitioner would still be able to get a copy of
the complaint as a matter of right, and the Office of the
Ombudsman could not refuse him because the complaint
was part of public records hence open to inspection and
examination by anyone under the proper circumstances.
While the act of petitioner may be covered by other
provisions of law, such does not constitute an offense
within the concept of C.A. No. 142 as amended under
which he is prosecuted. The confusion and fraud in
business transactions which the anti-alias law and its
related statutes seek to prevent are not present here as
the circumstances are peculiar and distinct from those
contemplated by the legislature in enacting C.A. No. 142
as amended.
The use of a fictitious name or a
different name belonging to another
person in a single instance without any
sign or indication that the user intends
to be known by this name in addition to
his real name from that day forth does
not fall within the prohibition contained
in C.A. No. 142 as amended.
As amended, C.A. No. 142 now reads:
Section 1. Except as a pseudonym
solely for literary, cinema, television,
radio or other entertainment purposes
and in athletic events where the use of
pseudonym is a normally accepted
practice, no person shall use any name
different from the one with which he
was registered at birth in the office of
the local civil registry or with which he
was baptized for the first time, or in
case of an alien, with which he was
registered in the bureau of immigration
upon entry; or such substitute name as
may have been authorized by a
competent court:
Provided, That persons whose births
have not been registered in any local
civil registry and who have not been
baptized, have one year from the
approval of this act within which to
register their names in the civil registry
of their residence. The name shall
comprise the patronymic name and one
or two surnames.
Sec. 2. Any person desiring to use an
alias shall apply for authority therefor in
proceedings like those legally provided
to obtain judicial authority for a change
of name and no person shall be
allowed to secure such judicial
authority for more than one alias. The
petition for an alias shall set forth the
persons baptismal and family name
and the name recorded in the civil
registry, if different, his immigrants
name, if an alien, and his pseudonym,
if he has such names other than his
11

a while then he left. When Loida learned that the
person who introduced himself as Oscar Perez was
actually petitioner Cesario Ursua, a customer of
Josefa Amparo in her gasoline station, Loida
reported the matter to the Deputy Ombudsman
who recommended that petitioner be accordingly
charged.
DEFENSE:
In 1990, after the prosecution had completed the
presentation of its evidence, petitioner without
leave of court filed a demurrer to evidence alleging
that the failure of the prosecution to prove that his
supposed alias was different from his registered
name in the local civil registry was fatal to its
cause.
Petitioner argued that no document from the local civil
registry was presented to show the registered name of
accused which according to him was a condition sine
qua non for the validity of his conviction
PP vs JOSEPH EJERCITO In 2001, 3 separate information were filed against
ESTRADA and THE petitioner, thereafter all 3 were consolidated
HONORABLE SPECIAL Estrada was subsequently arrested on the basis of
DIVISION OF THE a warrant of arrest that the Sandiganbayan issued
SANDIGANBAYAN 2005, the court ordered the creation of a Special
Melgar Division in the Sandiganbayan to try, hear, and
decide the charges of plunder and related cases
(illegal use of alias and perjury) against respondent
Keywords: Erap as Jose Estrada
Velarde
Prosecutions evidence:
The testimonies of Philippine Commercial and
Charged of: 3 separate Industrial Bank (PCIB) officers Clarissa G. Ocampo
information before (Ocampo) and Atty. Manuel Curato (Curato) who
Sandiganbayan plunder, illegal commonly declared that on February 4, 2000,
use of alias, perjury = Estrada opened a numbered trust account with
consolidated PCIB and signed as Jose Velarde in the account
opening documents; both Ocampo and Curato also
testified that Aprodicio Lacquian and Fernando
Sandiganbayan: Estrada did
Chua were present on that occasion
not publicly use the alias Jose
The testimony of PCIB-Greenhills Branch Manager
Velarde; Use of an alias within
Teresa Barcelan, who declared that a certain Baby
the context of a bank transaction
Ortaliza (Ortaliza) transacted several times with
(specifically, the opening of a
her; that Ortaliza deposited several checks in PCIB
numbered account made before
Savings Account under the account name Jose
bank officers) is protected by the
secrecy provisions of R.A. No. Velarde
1405, and is thus outside the
coverage of CA No. 142 until the
W/N petitioner guilty of violating Sec. 1 of C.A.
No. 142 Anti-Alias Law as amended by R. A.
No. 6085
Sandiganbayans Resolution (interlocutory
only):
People failed to present evidence that
Estrada committed the crime punished
under CA No. 142, as amended by RA
No. 6085, as interpreted by the Supreme
Court in Ursua v. CA
It ruled that there is an illegal use of alias
within the context of CA 142 only if the
use of the alias is public and habitual.
In Estradas case, the Sandiganbayan
noted, the application of the principles
was not as simple because of the
complications resulting from the nature of
the transaction involved the alias was
used in connection with the opening of a
numbered trust account made during the
effectivity of R.A. No. 1405, as amended,
and prior to the enactment of Republic
R.A. No. 9160.
Reading CA No. 142, R.A. No. 1405
(Bank Secrecy Law) and R.A. No. 6713
"Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
There exists a valid presumption that undesirable
consequences were never intended by a legislative
measure and that a construction of which the statute is
fairly susceptible is favored, which will avoid all
objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil
and injurious consequences. Moreover, as C.A. No. 142 is
a penal statute, it should be construed strictly against the
State and in favor of the accused.
The enactment of C.A. No. 142 as amended was made
primarily to curb the common practice among the Chinese
of adopting scores of different names and aliases which
created tremendous confusion in the field of trade. Such a
practice almost bordered on the crime of using fictitious
names which for obvious reasons could not be
successfully maintained against the Chinese who, rightly
or wrongly, claimed they possessed a thousand and one
names. CA. No. 142 thus penalized the act of using an
alias name, unless such alias was duly authorized by
proper judicial proceedings and recorded in the civil
register.
Our close reading of Ursua particularly, the requirement
that there be intention by the user to be culpable and the
historical reasons we cited above tells us that the required
publicity in the use of alias is more than mere
communication to a third person; the use of the alias, to be
considered public, must be made openly, or in an open
manner or place, or to cause it to become generally
known.
In order to be held liable for a violation of CA No. 142, the
user of the alias must have held himself out as a person
who shall publicly be known under that other name. In
other words, the intent to publicly use the alias must be
manifest.
To our mind, the presence of Lacquian (Chief of Staff) and
Chua (lawyer-friend) when Estrada signed as Jose
Velarde and opened Trust Account does not necessarily
indicate his intention to be publicly known henceforth as
Jose Velarde.
The nature, too, of the transaction on which the indictment
rests, affords Estrada a reasonable expectation of privacy,
as the alleged criminal act related to the opening of a trust
account a transaction that R.A. No. 1405 considers
absolutely confidential in nature.
We have consistently ruled that bank deposits under R.A.
No. 1405 (the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law) are
original or real name, specifying the
reason or reasons for the desired alias.
The judicial authority for the use of
alias, the christian name and the alien
immigrants name shall be recorded in
the proper local civil registry, and no
person shall use any name or names
other than his original or real name
unless the same is or are duly recorded
in the proper local civil registry.
The objective and purpose of C. A. No.
142 have their origin and basis in Act
No. 3883, An Act to Regulate the Use
in Business Transactions of Names
other than True Names, Prescribing the
Duties of the Director of the Bureau of
Commerce And Industry in its
Enforcement, Providing Penalties for
Violations approved in 1931.
How this law is violated has been
answered by the Ursua definition of an
alias a name or names used by a
person or intended to be used by him
publicly and habitually usually in
business transactions in addition to his
real name by which he is registered at
birth or baptized the first time or
substitute name authorized by a
competent authority.
There must be, in the words of Ursua, a
sign or indication that the user intends
to be known by this name (the alias) in
addition to his real name from that day
forth [for the use of alias to] fall within
the prohibition contained in C.A. No.
142 as amended.
Following the doctrine of stare decisis,
we are guided by the Ursua ruling on
how the crime punished under CA No.
142 may be committed.
Among the many grounds the People
invokes to avoid the application of the
Ursua ruling proceeds from Estradas
position in the government; at the time
of the commission of the offense, he
12
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON

passage into law of R.A. No.
9160.
SC: affirmed; NOT GUILTY
Defense:
Defense moved to be allowed to file a demurrer to
evidence in these cases.
In its Joint Resolution dated March 10, 2004, the
Sandiganbayan only granted the defense leave to
file demurrers in illegal use of alias and perjury
Grounds for demurrer:
Of the 35 witnesses presented by the
prosecution, only 2 witnesses, Ms. Clarissa
Ocampo and Atty. Manuel Curato, testified
that on one occasion (4 February 2000), they
saw movant use the name Jose Velarde;
The use of numbered accounts and the like
was legal and was prohibited only in late
2001 as can be gleaned from Bangko
Sentral Circular No. 302, series of 2001,
dated 11 October 2001;
There is no proof of public and habitual use
of alias as the documents offered by the
prosecution are banking documents which,
by their nature, are confidential and cannot
be revealed without following proper
procedures; and
The use of alias is absorbed in plunder.
Prosecution: (grounds in opposing the demurrers)
That the use of fictitious names in bank
transaction was not expressly prohibited until
BSP No. 302 is of no moment considering
that as early as Commonwealth Act No. 142,
the use of alias was already prohibited.
Movant is being prosecuted for violation of
C.A. No. 142 and not BSP Circular No. 302;
Movants reliance on Ursua vs. Court of
Appeals is misplaced;
Assuming arguendo that C.A. No. 142, as
amended, requires publication of the alias
and the habitual use thereof, the prosecution
has presented more than sufficient evidence
in this regard to convict movant for illegal use
of alias; and
Contrary to the submission of movant, the
instant case of illegal use of alias is not
absorbed in plunder.
for Public Officials and Employees"
together, Estrada had the absolute
obligation to disclose his assets including
the amount of his bank deposits, but he
was under no obligation at all to disclose
the other particulars of the bank account
(such as the name he used to open it).
The Sandiganbayan said that the absolute
prohibition in R.A. No. 9160 against the use of
anonymous accounts, accounts under fictitious
names, and all other similar accounts, is a
legislative acknowledgment that a gaping hole
previously existed in our laws that allowed
depositors to hide their true identities. The
Sandiganbayan noted that the prohibition was
lifted from Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)
Circular No. 251 dated July 7, 2000 another
confirmation that the opening of a numbered
trust account was perfectly legal when it was
opened on February 4, 2000.
statutorily protected or recognized zones of privacy. Given was the President of the Republic who
the private nature of Estradas act of signing the is required by law to disclose his true
documents as Jose Velarde related to the opening of the name. We do not find this argument
trust account, the People cannot claim that there was sufficient to justify a distinction between
already a public use of alias when Ocampo and Curato a man on the street, on one hand, and
witnessed the signing. This statutorily guaranteed privacy the President of the Republic, on the
and secrecy effectively negate a conclusion that the other, for purposes of applying CA No.
transaction was done publicly or with the intent to use the 142.
alias publicly.
The enactment of R.A. No.9160, on the other hand, is a
In the first place, the law does not
significant development only because it clearly manifests
make any distinction, expressly or
that prior to its enactment, numbered accounts or
impliedly, that would justify a differential
anonymous accounts were permitted banking
treatment. CA No. 142 as applied to
transactions, whether they be allowed by law or by a mere
Estrada, in fact allows him to use his
banking regulation. To be sure, an indictment against
cinema or screen name of Joseph
Estrada using this relatively recent law cannot be
Estrada, which name he has used even
maintained without violating the constitutional
when he was already the President of
prohibition on the enactment and use of ex post facto
the Philippines. Even the petitioner has
laws.
acquiesced to the use of the screen
name of the accused, as shown by the
In this light, there is no actual frontal clash between CA
title of the present petition. The mode
No. 142 and R.A. No. 1405 that requires harmonization.
of violating CA No. 142 is therefore the
Each operates within its own sphere, but must necessarily
same whoever the accused may be.
be read together when these spheres interface with one
another. Finally, R.A. No. 9160, as a law of recent vintage
in relation to the indictment against Estrada, cannot be a
source or an influencing factor in his indictment.
In finding the absence of the requisite publicity, we simply
looked at the totality of the circumstances obtaining in
Estradas use of the alias Jose Velarde vis--vis the Ursua
requisites. We do not decide here whether Estradas use of
an alias when he occupied the highest executive position
in the land was valid and legal; we simply determined, as
the Sandiganbayan did, whether he may be made liable
for the offense charged based on the evidence the People
presented.

PP vs. PABLITO ANDAYA y The appeal is meritorious.

REANO PROSECUTIONS VERSION:
Temanil At about 8:00 o'clock in the evening, their asset
who was conducting surveillance of Pablito Andaya
arrived at their station. Said asset reported that he
Whether or not the Prosecution's non-
presentation of the confidential informant was
adverse to the Prosecution, indicating that his
guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt
To secure the conviction of the accused who is charged
with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs as defined and
punished by Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
The non-presentation of the confidential
informant as a witness does not
ordinarily weaken the State's case
against the accused. However, if the
13

CHARGE: violation of Section 5 had arranged to buy shabu from Pablito. A team
of Republic Act No. 9165 was constituted to conduct a buy-bust.
Two (2) pieces of P100.00 bills both duly marked
RTC: Convicted as charged "X" were recorded in the police blotter. Police
officer Alea gave the marked bills to the asset.
CA: Affirmed the conviction Upon reaching the designated place, the team
members alighted from their vehicles and occupied
SC: ACQUITS accused Pablito different positions where they could see and
Andaya y Reano for failure to observe the asset. The asset knocked on the door
prove his guilt beyond of Pablito's house. Pablito came out. Pablito and
reasonable doubt the asset talked briefly. The asset gave Pablito the
marked money. The asset received something from
appellant.
The pre-arranged signal signifying consummation
of the transaction was given. The team members
approached Pablito and the asset, introduced
themselves as police officers and arrested
accused. He was brought to the police station. The
arrival of the team was recorded in the police
blotter. The merchandise handed by accused to the
asset was sent to the Regional Crime Laboratory in
Camp Vicente Lim, Canlubang, Laguna. The
specimen was positive for methampethamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.
VERSION OF THE DEFENSE:
Accused-appellant denied the charge. He stated
that at about 9: 15 in the evening of December 16,
2002 he was at home watching TV with his family
when police officers arrived. When he opened the
door, a police officer poked his gun at him.
Somebody else held a long firearm. Pablito was
handcuffed and brought outside. He refused to
negotiate and asked for a warrant. The policemen
searched the house, turned over the beddings and
uncovered their furniture.
No gun nor shabu was found. Pablito was brought
to the police station and detained. After three (3)
days he was released. He received a subpoena
from the Public Prosecutor afterwards.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
(Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002), the State must
establish the concurrence of the following elements,
namely: (a) that the transaction or sale took place between
the accused and the poseur buyer; and ( b) that the
dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is
presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.
We reiterate that a buy-bust operation is a valid and
legitimate form of entrapment of the drug pusher. In such
operation, the poseur buyer transacts with the suspect by
purchasing a quantity of the dangerous drug and paying
the price agreed upon, and in turn the drug pusher turns
over or delivers the dangerous drug subject of their
agreement in exchange for the price or other
consideration.
Once the transaction is consummated, the drug pusher is
arrested, and can be held to account under the criminal
law. The justification that underlies the legitimacy of the
buy-bust operation is that the suspect is arrested in
jlagranti delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed, or
is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the
offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or
private person. The arresting police officer or private
person is favored in such instance with the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty.
Proof of the transaction must be credible and complete. In
every criminal prosecution, it is the State, and no other,
that bears the burden of proving the illegal sale of the
dangerous drug beyond reasonable doubt. This
responsibility imposed on the State accords with the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, who
has no duty to prove his innocence until and unless the
presumption of innocence in his favor has been overcome
by sufficient and competent evidence.
Here, the confidential informant was not a police officer.
He was designated to be the poseur buyer himself. It is
notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested
Andaya on the basis of the pre-arranged signal from the
poseur buyer. The pre-arranged signal signified to the
members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had
been consummated between the poseur buyer and
Andaya.
However, the State did not present the confidential
informant/poseur buyer during the trial to describe how
exactly the transaction between him and Andaya had
taken place. There would have been no issue against that,
except that none of the members of the buy-bust team had
directly witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya
arresting lawmen arrested the accused
based on the pre-arranged signal from
the confidential informant who acted as
the poseur buyer, his nonpresentation
must be credibly explained and the
transaction established by other ways in
order to satisfy the quantum of proof
beyond reasonable doubt because the
arresting lawmen did not themselves
participate in the buy-bust transaction
with the accused
To secure the conviction of the accused
who is charged with the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs as defined and
punished by Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Drugs Act of 2002), the State must
establish the concurrence of the
following elements, namely: (a) that the
transaction or sale took place between
the accused and the poseur buyer; and
( b) that the dangerous drugs subject of
the transaction or sale is presented in
court as evidence of the corpus delicti
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165
punishes "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, or shall act as a broker
in any of such transactions." Under the
law, selling was any act "of giving away
any dangerous drug and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemical
whether for money or any other
consideration;" while delivering was
any act "of knowingly passing a
dangerous drug to another, personally
or otherwise, and by any means, with
or without consideration.
14

PEOPLE VS ENUMERABLE
Uy A deal in shabu between the asset of PO3
Edwalberto Villas and a Enumerable of San Pablo
KEYWORDS: City, a buy-bust operation was conducted by
- Buy-Bust Operation, Batangas City Police Station with the assistance of
Shabu, Chain of Custody Police Inspector Danilo Balmes of the CIDG
Rule Batangas Province on May 27, 2004 at 11:30 oclock
in the morning at the Petron Gasoline Station along
B. Morada Ave., Lipa City.
Using two (2) pieces of marked P500.00 bills and
RTC: boodle money to make the appearance of about
- Convicted for violation of P24,000.00, the police asset who posed as a buyer
Section 5 of RA 9165 transacted with Gerry Enumerable upon his arrival at
the gas station.
CA: After the exchange of the marked money and the
- AFFIRMED decision of three (3) plastic sachets of shabu placed in a black
RTC plastic box, alias Gerry was placed under arrest.
The marked money was recovered from his
possession by PO3 Villas who also took custody of
SC: the specimen shabu which he marked EMV 1 to
- ACQUITTED EMV 3.
The three (3) sachets of shabu were turned over to
the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory, pursuant
to the request for laboratory examination of P/Supt.
Fausto Manzanilla, Jr., Chief of Police, Batangas
City PNP on May 27, 2004 at 5:25 p.m.
However, that Crime laboratory indorsed the request
with the specimens on June 4, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to
the Regional Crime Laboratory in Calamba City.
Police Inspector and Forensic Chemist found the
specimens positive for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
the authenticity and genuineness of which were
admitted by accused during the pre-trial.
Appellant filed a Comment with Motion for Leave to
File Demurrer, which motion was denied by the trial
Whether or not the prosecution
established the identity and integrity of
the confiscated illegal drug, which is
the corpus delicti of the offense charged
against appellant
- While appellant waived the presentation
of evidence for his defense, he disputes
the identity and integrity of the illegal drug
which is the corpus delicti of the offense
charged against him.
Appellant maintains that the prosecution failed
to prove the unbroken chain of custody of the
illegal drug which gravely impairs its identity.
Without the identity of the corpus delicti being
sufficiently established, appellant claims that
he should be acquitted.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
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.
Given the legal characterizations of the acts constituting
the offense charged under Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9165, the members of the buy-bust team could not
incriminate Andaya by simply declaring that they had seen
from their positions the poseur buyer handing something
to Andaya who, in turn, gave something to the poseur
buyer. If the transaction was a sale, it was unwarranted to
infer from such testimonies of the members of the buy-
bust team that what the poseur buyer handed over were
the marked P100.00 bills and that what Andaya gave to
the poseur buyer was the shabu purchased.
NO. ACCUSED IS ACQUITTED
It is settled that in prosecutions for illegal sale of
dangerous drug, not only must the essential elements of
the offense be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but
likewise the identity of the prohibited drug. The dangerous
drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and
the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.
In this case, there was a glaring gap in the custody of the
illegal drug since the prosecution failed to sufficiently
establish who had custody of the illegal drug from the
moment it was allegedly transmitted to the Batangas
Provincial Crime Laboratory on 27 May 2004 until it was
allegedly delivered to the Regional Crime Laboratory on 4
June 2004. There was no evidence presented how the
confiscated sachets of shabu were stored, preserved or
labeled nor who had custody prior to their delivery to the
Regional Crime Laboratory and their subsequent
presentation before the trial court.
PO3 Villas testified thus:
Q But when the accused was arrested on May 27,
2004, records will show that the specimen was
submitted to the crime laboratory on June 4, 2004
which is practically several days after. Am I right?
A It was turned over to the duty investigator.
Q Who brought the specimen to the crime
laboratory?
A I dont know from the duty investigator, sir.
Q So you are not aware who brought the specimen to
the crime laboratory?
A Yes, sir.
In all prosecutions for the violation of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, the existence of the
prohibited drug has to be proved. The
chain of custody rule requires that
testimony be presented about every
link in the chain, from the moment
the item was seized up to the time it
is offered in evidence. To this end,
the prosecution must ensure that the
substance presented in court is the
same substance seized from the
accused.
While this Court recognizes substantial
adherence to the requirements of R.A.
No. 9165 and its implementing rules
and regulations, not perfect adherence,
is what is demanded of police officers
attending to drugs cases, still, such
officers must present justifiable reason
for their imperfect conduct and show
that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items had been
preserved.
To establish guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt in cases involving
dangerous drugs, it is important that the
substance illegally possessed in the
first place be the same substance
offered in court as exhibit. This chain
of custody requirement ensures that
unnecessary doubts are removed
15

court for appellants failure to adduce any reason
therefor
RTC: Found accused guilty
CA: Affirmed RTC decision
The testimony of PO3 Villas identifying the 3 plastic
sachets of shabu as the same ones seized from
appellant rendered insignificant appellants
allegation that PO3 Villas did not immediately put
markings on the three sachets of shabu at the place
of arrest. The CA further ruled that the failure of the
arresting officers to conduct a physical inventory and
to take photographs of the seized items is not fatal
as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved, as in this case.
PEOPLE vs. HAVANA
Uy - On the afternoon of November 4, 2005, a civilian
informant, one "Droga", went to Police Station 10,
KEYWORD: Punta Princesa, Cebu City and reported to the duty
Shabu, Chain of Custody Rule, officer (SPO1 Espenido) that the appellant was
Buy-Bust Operation, actively engaged in the illegal drug trade at Sitio
Mangga, Punta Princesa, Cebu City.
RTC: - SPO1 Espenido immediately assembled a buy-bust
- Guilty of violating Section team, with him as the team leader, the civilian
5, Article II of Republic Act asset and with PO2 Enriquez, SPO1 Canete, and
No. 9165 (RA 9165) SPO1 PO2 Nuez as back-up.
CA: - The police team designated the unnamed "civilian
- Affirmed decision of RTC informant" as poseur-buyer and provided him with
a PI00.00 marked money bill, with its serial number
(SN003332) noted in the police blotter, to be used
SC: for the purpose of buying shabu from appellant.
ACQUITTED
Whether or not the prosecution
established the identity and integrity of
the confiscated illegal drug, which is
the corpus delicti of the offense charged
against appellant
the 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
The prosecution utterly failed to establish convincingly the
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
COURT
Q When the identity of the dangerous drug
Because it was submitted 7 days after the
apprehension?
A forensic chemist for review and
I was not the one who is concerned with the
submission of the specimen to the crime laboratory.
We turned it over to the duty investigator and the
duty investigator marked the specimen, Your Honor.
PO3 Villas had no personal knowledge on (1) how
the illegal drugs were delivered and who delivered
the drugs from the Batangas Provincial Crime
Laboratory to the Regional Crime Laboratory; (2)
who received the drugs in the Regional Crime
Laboratory; and (3) who had custody of the drugs
from 27 May 2004 to 3 June 2004 until their
presentation before the trial court. The testimony of
PO3 Villas merely attests to the existence of the
Memorandum from the Chief of the Batangas
Provincial Crime Laboratory to the Regional Crime
Laboratory.
While appellant admitted during the pre-trial the
authenticity and due execution of the Chemistry
Report, prepared by Police Inspector and Forensic
Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas, this admission
merely affirms the existence of the specimen and
the request for laboratory examination and the
results thereof. Appellants admission does not
relate to the issue of chain of custody.
NO.
Adherence to the chain of custody rule not established.
In this ultimate recourse, appellant focuses his principal
argument on the alleged failure of the prosecution to
establish a continuous and unbroken chain of custody of
the seized illegal drug and the lack of integrity of the
evidence in view of the police officers' non-compliance
with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
chain of custody of the alleged seized plastic pack subject
matter hereof. In fact only PO2 Enriquez and SPOl Canete
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.
concerning the identity of the evidence.
recovered from the accused is not the
same dangerous drug presented to the
examination, nor the same dangerous
drug presented to the court, the identity
of the dangerous drug is not preserved
due to the broken chain of custody.
With this, an element in the criminal
cases for illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs,
the corpus delicti, is not proven, and the
accused must then be acquitted based
on reasonable doubt. For this reason,
[the accused] must be acquitted on the
ground of reasonable doubt due to the
broken chain of custody over the
dangerous drug allegedly recovered
from him.
The Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,
defines chain of custody as "duly
recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time
of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping, to
presentation in court for destruction."
As a method of authenticating
evidence, the chain of custody rule
requires that the admission of an
exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the
16

- When the police team reached the target area, the
"civilian informant" went to the house of appellant
and called the latter. Hidden from view, some 15
meters away from the house, the back-up
operatives, PO2 Enriquez and SPO1 Canete, saw
the civilian informant talking with the appellant.
- Not long after, they saw the "civilian informant"
handling over the marked PI00.00 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 as shabu.
- The "civilian informant" then placed a face towel on
his left shoulder to signal that the sale had been
consummated. 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 suspected shabu were
turned over to SPO2 Nuez who marked the plastic
pack with "FA" the initials of herein appellant. He
then prepared a letter requesting for examination9
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
that yielded "positive result for the presence of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.''
The appellant denied that he was a shabu-seller; he also
denied that he was arrested in a buy-bust operation. He
claimed that on that evening of November 4, 2005 he
was eating bread when SPO2 Nuez barged inside his
house, handcuffed him and brought him to the police
precinct. He claimed that he was mistaken for his
neighbor "Narding" the real shabu-seller. His daughter,
Maria Theresa, corroborated him.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
While both witnesses testified that after the sale and
apprehension of the appellant, the poseur-buyer turned
over the subject pack of shabu to their team leader SPOl
Espenido, there is no record as to what happened after
the turn-over.
SPOl Espenido to whom the specimen was allegedly
surrendered by the poseur-buyer was not presented in
court to identify the person to whom it was given thereafter
and the condition thereof while it was in his possession
and control.
The prosecution's cause is also marred by confusion
and uncertainty regarding the possessor of the pack
of shabu when it was brought to the police station. By
PO2 Enriquez's account, it was SPO2 Nuez who was in
of the same - an account which is at loggerheads with the
claim of SPOl Canete that he was in custody and
possession thereof and that he personally brought the
same to the police station.
It must be observed that SPO2 Nuez who had
supposedly taken custody of the substance following PO2
Enriquez's account was likewise not presented in court to
testify.
Moreover, the prosecution failed to show how, when and
from whom SPO2 Nuez or SPOl Canete received the
evidence. There was no evidence on how they came
into possession of the pack of shabu. Again, this is a
clear missing link in the chain of custody of the specimen
after it left the hands of SPOl Espenido.
The records show that there is nothing positive and
convincingly clear from the testimony of Forensic Chemist
PCI Salinas. She did not at all categorically and
straightforwardly assert that the alleged chemical
substance that was submitted for laboratory examination
and thereafter presented in court was the very same
substance allegedly recovered from the appellant. She
never testified where the substance came from. Her
testimony was limited only on the result of the
examination she conducted and not on the source of
the substance.
Apart from the utter failure of the prosecution to establish
an unbroken chain of custody, yet another procedural
lapse casts further uncertainty about the identity and
integrity of the subject shabu, which is non-compliance
by the buy-bust team with the most rudimentary
procedural safeguards relative to the custody and
disposition of the seized item under Section
21(1), Article II of RA 9165. Here, the alleged
apprehending team after the alleged initial custody and
proponent claims it to be. It would
include testimony about every link in
the chain, from the moment the item
was picked up to the time it is offered in
evidence, in such a way that every
person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it
was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in
the chain.
These witnesses would then describe
the precautions taken to ensure that
there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity
for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.
While the testimony about a perfect
chain is not always the standard
because it is almost always impossible
to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody
becomes indispensable and essential
when the item of real evidence is not
distinctive and is not readily identifiable,
or when its condition at the time of
testing or trial is critical, or when a
witness has failed to observe its
uniqueness.
The same standard obtains in case the
evidence is susceptible of alteration,
tampering, contamination and even
substitution and exchange. In other
words, the exhibit's level of
susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or
tampering -without regard to whether
the same is advertent or otherwise not -
dictates the level of strictness in the
application of the chain or custody rule.
Liberality of Sec. 21,, Art II of RA 9165
may only be observed, only when the
evidentiary value and integrity of the
illegal drug are properly preserved
NOTES:
- Coordination with the PDEA is not
17
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON

control of the drug, and after immediately seizing and an indispensable requirement
confiscating the same, never ever made a physical before police authorities may carry
inventory of the same, nor did it ever photograph the same out a buy-bust operation; that in
in the presence of the appellant from whom the alleged fact, even the absence of
item was confiscated. There was no physical inventory coordination with the PDEA will
and photograph of the item allegedly seized from not invalidate a buy-bust
appellant. Neither was there any explanation offered for operation.
such failure.
Neither is the presentation of the
While this Court in certain cases has tempered the informant indispensable to the success
mandate of strict compliance with the requisite under in prosecuting drug-related cases.
Section 21 of RA 9165, such liberality, as stated in the IRR Informers are almost always never
can be applied only when the evidentiary value and presented in court because of the need
integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved as we to preserve their invaluable service to
stressed in People v. Guru. In the case at bar, the the police. Unless their testimony is
evidentiary value and integrity of the alleged illegal drug absolutely essential to the conviction of
had been thoroughly compromised. Serious uncertainty is the accused, their testimony may be
generated on the identity of the item in view of the broken dispensed with since their narrations
linkages in the chain of custody. In this light, the would be merely corroborative to the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official testimonies of the buy-bust team.
duty accorded the buy-bust team by the courts below
cannot arise.
PEOPLE OF THE PROSECUTION: W/N the chain of custody over the seized YES, the chain of custody over the seized shabu had been A successful prosecution for the sale of
PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. SO PO1 Manalo testified that members of the District shabu had been broken broken. Hence, appellant should be acquitted. illegal drugs requires more than the
NIA BERNEL Drug Enforcement Group of the Central Police perfunctory presentation of evidence
NUARIN, appellant. District went to Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City, In securing or sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. establishing each element of the crime:
Gapit to conduct a buy-bust operation against the 9165, the intrinsic worth of these pieces of evidence, the identities of the buyer and seller,
appellant Nuarin. especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, the transaction or sale of the illegal
Keywords: marking, chain of The informant then introduced PO1 Manalo to the must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This drug, and the existence of the corpus
custody, identity of shabu, RM appellant. requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's delicti.
PO1 Manalo told the appellant that he wanted to unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily
Case Filed: violation of Sections buy P100.00 worth of shabu. identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation
5 (illegal sale) and Section 11 The appellant handed a sachet containing white substitution either by accident or otherwise. No. 1, Series of 2002, which
(illegal possession) of R.A. No. crystalline substances to PO1 Manalo who, in turn, Thus, to remove any doubt on the identity and implements R.A. No. 9165, defines
9165 (CDDA) gave him the marked money. integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely chain of custody as "the duly
Immediately after, PO1 Manalo made the show that the illegal drug presented in court is the recorded authorized movements and
RTC: prearranged signal to his companions. same illegal drug actually recovered from the custody of seized drugs or controlled
guilty of the illegal sale of 0.03 The other members of the entrapment team rushed accused-appellant. It is in this respect that the chemicals or plant sources of
gram of shabu penalized under to the scene and introduced themselves as prosecution failed. dangerous drugs or laboratory
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. policemen; PO1 Mutia searched the appellant and equipment of each stage, from the time
9165. found two other plastic sachets inside the A crucial step in proving chain of custody is the marking of of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
But acquitted her of illegal appellant's coin purse. Thereafter, the police the seized drugs or other related items immediately after forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
possession for insufficiency of brought the appellant and the seized items to the they are seized from the accused. presentation in court for destruction."
evidence. police station. In the present case, the prosecution's lone witness, PO1
Manalo, gave conflicting statements as to who marked "Marking" means the placing by the
CA: Affirmed RTC DEFENSE: the seized sachets. In his direct testimony, he claimed apprehending officer or the poseur-
Accused-appellant was at home with her son John that it was the desk officer who marked the sachets, buyer of his/her initials and signature
SC: ACQUITTED the appellant Bernel and friends Jan Ticson and Rebecca thus: on the items seized. Marking after
for the prosecution's failure to Agana. They had just finished eating lunch and Q: After the recovered money by PO1 Mutia and after you seizure is the starting point in the
prove her guilt beyond accused appellant was, then, washing the dishes arrived at the station, what did you do? custodial link; hence, it is vital that the
reasonable doubt. when she heard a knock on the door. A: We turned it over to the desk officer and the desk seized contraband be immediately
officer put the initial RM. marked because succeeding handlers
At the door were PO3 Cleto Montenegro, PO1
18

Filnar Mutia and two others.
They were looking for a certain Bogart. When
accused-appellant said that she did not know
where Bogart was, the police officers entered the
house and searched the premises for about an
hour.
When the search did not yield anything
incriminatory, the police brought accused-appellant
and the other occupants of the house to Camp
Karingal in Quezon City.
There, the police extorted P40,000.00 in exchange
of accused-appellant's release. When the money
was not produced, accused-appellant was charged
by the police officers.
In her brief on appeal, the appellant contends that
the trial court gravely erred in convicting her of the
crime charged despite the prosecution's failure to
establish that a buy-bust operation took place.
Appellant also maintained that the chain of
custody over the seized shabu had been
broken.
For the State, the office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) counters that the prosecution was
able to establish that the sale of shabu between the
appellant and the poseur-buyer was consummated.
It also maintained that the nonpresentation in court
of the original marked money, the forensic chemist,
the informant, and the original marked money was
not fatal in the prosecution for illegal drugs.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
However, in the latter part of his direct examination PO1
Manalo claimed that he was the one who marked the
sachets.
Q: Will you please go over the same and tell me what is
the relation of the said sachet with the substance with the
one you were able to buy?
A: This is the same stuff that I bought, this is my
marking.
In his cross-examination, PO1 Manalo again stated that he
was the one who marked the confiscated plastic sachets
with "RM."
We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen
will use the initial markings as reference. If at the first
instance or opportunity, there are already doubts on who
really placed the markings on the seized sachets (or if the
markings were made in accordance with the required
procedure), serious uncertainty hangs over the
identification of the seized shabu that the prosecution
introduced into evidence.
In addition, the records do not show that the sachets
were marked in the presence of the appellant.
As to the subsequent links in the chain of custody, PO1
Manalo stated that he handed the seized plastic sachets
to the desk officer at the police station. Curiously, the
identity of this desk officer was never revealed during trial.
This is particularly significant since no reference was ever
made as to the person who submitted the seized
specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.
PO1 Manalo, in fact, testified that he could not remember
the person who brought the seized plastic sachets to the
crime laboratory. Notably, the specimen was forwarded to
the crime laboratory only at 10:35 p.m. It was not clear,
therefore, who had temporary custody of the seized items
when they left the hands of PO1 Manalo until they were
brought to the crime laboratory for qualitative analysis.
Par. 1, Sec. 21 of Art II of RA 9165, requires physical
inventory and photograph of the seized drugs. This
procedure, however, was not shown to have been
complied with by the members of the buy-bust team, as
PO1 Manalo himself admitted that the police did not
make an inventory and photograph the seized items
either at the place of seizure or at the police station. In
addition, the police did not offer any acceptable reason
why they failed to do a basic requirement like a physical
inventory of the seized drugs, considering that there were
only three (3) sachets taken from the appellant.
In fine, the totality of evidence presented in the instant
of the specimens will use the markings
as reference. The marking of the
evidence serves to separate the
marked evidence from the corpus of all
other similar or related evidence from
the time they are seized from the
accused until they are disposed of at
the end of the criminal proceedings,
thus preventing switching, "planting," or
contamination of evidence.
In People v. Sanchez, we explained
that the "marking" of the seized items [
] to truly ensure that they are the same
items that enter the chain and are
eventually the ones offered in evidence
should be done (1) in the presence of
the apprehended violator (2)
immediately upon confiscation. We
explained therein that [t]his step
initiates the process of protecting
innocent persons from dubious and
concocted searches, and of protecting
as well the apprehending officers from
harassment suits based on planting of
evidence under Section 29 and on
allegations of robbery or theft.
The requirements of paragraph 1,
Section 21
of Article II of R.A. No. 9165
The required procedure on the seizure
and custody of drugs is embodied in
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
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.
This is implemented by Section 21 (a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which
19
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
case does not support the appellant's conviction for
violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165, since the
prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all
the elements of the offense. We reiterate that the
prosecution's failure to comply with Section 21, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody
requirement of this Act, compromised the identity of the
item seized, which is the corpus delicti of the crime
charged against appellant. Following the constitutional
mandate, when the guilt of the appellant has not been
proven with moral certainty, as in this case, the
presumption of innocence prevails and his exoneration
should be granted as a matter of right.
JAIME D. DELA PROSECUTION: W/N the drug test conducted on petitioner was NO, the drug test conducted on petitioner was not legal.
CRUZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE The agents and special investigators of the NBI legal 1. The drug test in Section 15 does not
OF THE received a Complaint from Corazon Absin cover persons apprehended or
PHILIPPINES, respondent. (Corazon) and Charito Escobido (Charito). arrested for any unlawful act, but
Gapit The complainants claimed that at 1:00 a.m. of that only for unlawful acts listed under
same day, Ariel Escobido (Ariel), the live-in partner Article II of R.A. 9165.
Keywords: Urine drug test, of Corazon and son of Charito, was picked up by A person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean
extortion, Jollibee, police user several unknown male persons believed to be any person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The
police officers for allegedly selling drugs. phrase must be read in context and understood in
Case Filed: violation of Section An errand boy gave a number to the complainants, consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends
15 (use of dangerous drugs), and when the latter called the number, they were persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts
Article II of R.A. 9165 (CDDA) instructed to proceed to the Gorordo Police Office listed under Article II of the law.
located along Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. Making the phrase "a person apprehended or arrested" in
RTC: found the accused guilty In the said police office, they met "James" who Section 15 applicable to all persons arrested or
beyond reasonable doubt of demanded from them PhP100,000, later lowered to apprehended for unlawful acts, not only under R.A.
violating Section 15, Article II PhP40,000, in exchange for the release of Ariel. 9165 but for all other crimes, is tantamount to a mandatory
of R.A. 9165. After the meeting, the complainants proceeded to drug testing of all persons apprehended or arrested for
the NBI-CEVRO to file a complaint and narrate the any crime.
Disregarding petitioner's circumstances of the meeting to the authorities.
objection regarding the While at the NBI-CEVRO, Charito even received 2. The drug test is not covered by
admissibility of the evidence, the calls supposedly from "James" instructing her to allowable non-testimonial compulsion.
reads:
(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;
Section 15. Use of Dangerous
Drugs. A person apprehended or
arrested, who is found to be positive for
use of any dangerous drug, after a
confirmatory test, shall be imposed a
penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center
for the first offense, subject to the
provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If
apprehended using any dangerous
drug for the second time, he/she shall
suffer the penalty of imprisonment
ranging from six (6) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years and a fine
ranging from Fifty thousand pesos
(PhP50,000.00) to Two hundred
thousand pesos
(PhP200,000.00): Provided, That this
Section shall not be applicable where
the person tested is also found to have
in his/her possession such quantity of
20

lower court also reasoned that
"a suspect cannot invoke his
right to counsel when he is
required to extract urine
because, while he is already in
custody, he is not compelled to
make a statement or testimony
against himself. Extracting urine
from one's body is merely a
mechanical act, hence, falling
outside the concept of a
custodial investigation."
CA: Affirmed RTC
SC: ACQUIT. Drug test does
not cover cases on extortion.
DEFENSE:
PP vs. JAVIER MORILLA Y
AVELLANO
Temanil
Charge: illegal transport of
shabu
RTC: convicted Morilla and his
co-accused Mayor Mitra, then
bring the money as soon as possible.
The special investigators at the NBI-CEVRO
formed a team to implement an entrapment
operation, which took place inside a Jollibee
branch at the corner of Gen. Maxilom and Gorordo
Avenues, Cebu City.
The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz by
using a pre-marked PhP500 bill dusted with
fluorescent powder, which was made part of the
amount demanded by "James" and handed by
Corazon.
Petitioner was later brought to the forensic
laboratory of the NBI-CEVRO where forensic
examination was done by forensic chemist Rommel
Paglinawan.
Petitioner was required to submit his urine for
drug testing. It later yielded a positive result for
presence of dangerous drugs as indicated in the
confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology
(Dangerous Drugs) Report No. 2006-TDD-2402
dated 16 February 2006.
The defense presented petitioner as the lone
witness.
He denied the charges and testified that while
eating at the said Jollibee branch, he was arrested
allegedly for extortion by NBI agents.
When he was at the NBI Office, he was required to
extract urine for drug examination, but he refused
saying he wanted it to be done by the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory and not by
the NBI. His request was, however, denied.
He also requested to be allowed to call his
lawyer prior to the taking of his urine sample, to
no avail.
The two vehicles, the Starex van driven by Mayor
Mitra and the ambulance van driven by Morilla, left
Infanta, Quezon en route to Manila. The Starex van
which was ahead of the ambulance was able to
pass the checkpoint set up by the police officers.
However, the ambulance driven by Morilla was
stopped by police officers. Through the untinted
window, one of the police officers noticed several
sacks inside the van. Upon inquiry of the contents,
Whether the prosecution was able to prove his
culpability as alleged in the Information.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
Cases where non-testimonial compulsion has been
allowed reveal that the pieces of evidence obtained were
all material to the principal cause of the arrest.
In the instant case, we fail to see how a urine sample
could be material to the charge of extortion. The RTC and
the CA, therefore, both erred when they held that the
extraction of petitioner's urine for purposes of drug testing
was "merely a mechanical act, hence, falling outside the
concept of a custodial investigation."
3. The drug test was a violation
petitioner's right to privacy and right
against self-incrimination.
It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his
urine extracted and tested for drugs. He also asked for a
lawyer prior to his urine test. He was adamant in
exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved futile,
because he was still compelled to submit his urine for drug
testing under those circumstances.
The pertinent provisions in Article III of the Constitution are
clear:
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
In the face of these constitutional guarantees, we cannot
condone drug testing of all arrested persons regardless of
the crime or offense for which the arrest is being made.
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties
actually came together and agreed in express terms to
enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of the
minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually
inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which,
taken together, indicate that they are parts of some
complete whole.In this case, the totality of the factual
circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired
with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the
any dangerous drug provided for under
Section 11 of this Act, in which case
the provisions stated therein shall
apply.
Hence, a drug test can only be made
upon persons who are apprehended or
arrested for, among others, the
"importation", "sale, trading,
administration, dispensation, delivery,
of distribution and
transportation", "manufacture" and
"possession" of dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and
essential chemicals; possession
thereof "during parties, social
gatherings or meetings"; being
"employees and visitors of a den, dive
or resort"; "maintenance of a den, dive
or resort"; "illegal chemical diversion of
controlled precursors and essential
chemicals"; "manufacture or
delivery" or "possession" of equipment,
instrument, apparatus, and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and
essential chemicals; possession of
dangerous drugs "during parties, social
gatherings or
meetings"; "unnecessary" or
"unlawful" prescription thereof;
"cultivation or culture of plants
classified as dangerous drugs or are
sources thereof"; and "maintenance
and keeping of original records of
transactions on dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and
essential chemicals." To make the
provision applicable to all persons
arrested or apprehended for any crime
not listed under Article II is tantamount
to unduly expanding its meaning.
Transport" as used under the
Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry
or convey from one place to another." It
was well established during trial that
Morilla was driving the ambulance
following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who
was driving a Starex van going to
Manila. The very act of transporting
methamphetamine hydrochloride is
malum prohibitum since it is punished
21

incumbent Mayor of Panukulan,
Quezon, of illegal transport of
methamphetamine
hydrochloride, commonly known
as shabu, with an approximate
weight of five hundred three
point sixty eight (503.68) kilos.
However, it absolved Dequilla
and Yang due to the
prosecutions failure to present
sufficient evidence to convict
them of the offense charged.
CA: AFFIRMED. It upheld the
finding of conspiracy between
Mayor Mitra and Morilla in their
common intent to transport
several sacks containing
methamphetamine
hydrochloride on board their
respective vehicles.
SC: AFFIRMED
Morilla replied that the sacks contained narra
wooden tiles.
Unconvinced, the police officers requested Morilla
to open the rear door of the car for further
inspection. When it was opened, the operatives
noticed that white crystalline granules were
scattered on the floor, prompting them to request
Morilla to open the sacks. At this moment, Morilla
told the police officers that he was with Mayor Mitra
in an attempt to persuade them to let him pass. His
request was rejected by the police officers and
upon inspection, the contents of the sacks turned
out to be sacks of methamphetamine
hydrochloride. This discovery prompted the
operatives to chase the Starex van of Mayor Mitra.
The police officers were able to overtake the van
and Mayor Mitra was asked to stop. They then
inquired if the mayor knew Morilla. On plain view,
the operatives noticed that his van was also loaded
with sacks like the ones found in the ambulance.
Thus, Mayor Mitra was also requested to open the
door of the vehicle for inspection. At this instance,
Mayor Mitra offered to settle the matter but the
same was rejected. Upon examination, the
contents of the sacks were likewise found to
contain sacks of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The police officers have already acquired prior
knowledge that the said vehicles were suspected to
be used for transportation of dangerous drugs.
During the checkpoint in Real, Quezon, the
information turned out to be accurate and indeed,
the two accused had in their motor vehicles more
than 500 kilos of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON
dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks as an offense under a special law. The
of dangerous drugs, were on convoy from Quezon to fact of transportation of the sacks
Manila. Mayor Mitra was able to drive through the containing dangerous drugs need not
checkpoint set up by the police operatives. be accompanied by proof of criminal
intent, motive or knowledge.
When it was Morillas turn to pass through the checkpoint,
he was requested to open the rear door for a routinary
check. Noticing white granules scattered on the floor, the
police officers requested Morilla to open the sacks. If
indeed he was not involved in conspiracy with Mayor
Mitra, he would not have told the police officers that he
was with the mayor.
His insistence that he was without any knowledge of the
contents of the sacks and he just obeyed the instruction of
his immediate superior Mayor Mitra in driving the said
vehicle likewise bears no merit.
Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante
delicto in the act of transporting the dangerous drugs on
board their vehicles. "Transport" as used under the
Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from
one place to another." It was well established during
trial that Morilla was driving the ambulance following
the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex van
going to Manila. The very act of transporting
methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum
since it is punished as an offense under a special law.
The fact of transportation of the sacks containing
dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof
of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.
However, we modify the penalty imposed by the trial court
as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Originally, under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, the
penalty for illegal transportation of methamphetamine
hydrochloride was imprisonment ranging from six years
and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six
thousand to twelve thousand pesos. Pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1683,the penalty was amended to
life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from twenty
to thirty thousand pesos. The penalty was further
amended in Republic Act No. 7659, where the penalty was
changed to reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging
from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.
From the foregoing, we sustain the imposed penalty of fine
of P10,000,00.00 to be paid by each of the accused but
amend the penalty to reclusion perpetua following the
provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 and the principle of
retroactive application of lighter penalty. Reclusion
perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years
after which the convict becomes eligible for pardon. It also
22
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON

carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual

special disqualification, etc. Life imprisonment, on the
other hand, does not appear to have any definite extent or
duration and carries no accessory penalties.

PEOPLE VS LAYLO Prosecution W/N GUILTY OF ATTEMPT TO SELL YES! GUILTY! The elements necessary for the
Gonzales - In the afternoon of 17 December 2005, PO1 Reyes ILLEGAL DRUGS prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are:
and PO1 Pastor, both wearing civilian clothes, - The appeal lacks merit. (1) the identity of the buyer and seller,
KEYWORDS: were conducting anti-drug surveillance operations - The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal the object, and the consideration; and
- Attempt to sell illegal drugs at Lozana Street, Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal. sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
- While the police officers were in front of a sari- seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the payment
CASE FILED: sari store at around 5:40 p.m., appellant Laylo and delivery of the thing sold and the payment
- 2 separate information his live-in partner, Ritwal, approached them and - From the testimonies given, PO1 Reyes and PO1 However, the sale was interrupted and
against asked,Gusto mong umiskor ng shabu? PO1 Reyes Pastor testified that they were the poseur-buyers in was not consummated. Therefore,
Laylo and Melitona Ritwal replied, Bakit mayroon ka ba? Laylo then brought the sale. Both positively identified appellant as the appellants are liable for attempt to sell
- : attempt to sell drugs out two plastic bags containing shabu and told the seller of the substance contained in plastic sachets illegal drugs
violation of Section 26(b), police officers, Dos (P200.00) ang isa. Upon which were found to be positive for shabu. The same
Article II hearing this, the police officers introduced plastic sachets were likewise identified by the
themselves as cops. PO1 Reyes immediately prosecution witnesses when presented in court. Even
Ritwal jumped bail tried in arrested Laylo. Ritwal, on the other, tried to get the consideration of P200.00 for each sachet had
absentia away but PO1 Pastor caught up with her. PO1 been made known by appellant to the police officers.
Pastor then frisked Ritwal and found another However, the sale was interrupted when the police
sachet of shabu in a SIM card case officers introduced themselves as cops and
RTC: which Ritwal was carrying. immediately arrested appellant and his live-in
- Guilty partner Ritwal. Thus, the sale was not consummated
Defense: Presented 3 witness but merely attempted.
CA: - Laylo testified that while he and his common-law
- AFFIRMED decision of wife, Ritwal, were walking on the street, two men
RTC grabbed them. The two men, who they later
identified as PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, dragged
them to their house. Once inside, the police officers
SC: placed two plastic sachets in each of their pockets.
- AFFIRM Afterwards, they were brought to the police station
where, despite protests and claims that the drugs
were planted on them, they were arrested and
charged.
- To corroborate Laylos testimony, the defense
presented Laylos three neighbors. Marlon de Leon
(de Leon), also a close friend of the couple,
testified that he was taking care of
the Laylo and Ritwals child when he heard a
commotion. He saw men, whom de Leon identified
as assets, holding the couple and claimed that he
saw one of them put something, which he
described as plastic, in the left side of Laylosjacket.
- Rodrigo Panaon, Jr. (Panaon) narrated that on 17
December 2005, at around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., he
was on his way home when he saw Layloarguing
with three men in an alley. He
overheard Laylo uttering, Bakit ba? Bakit ba? Later,
Panaon saw a commotion taking place
at Laylosbackyard. The three men
23
 CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW: Articles 114 - 202
BENEDICTO | DUGUIL | MELGAR | TEMANIL | UY | GAPIT | GONZALES
GUEVARA | ESCUDERO | DOLATRE | AMANSEC | SIATON

arrested Laylo while the latter

shouted, Mga kapitbahay, tulungan ninyo kami, ka
miy dinadampot. Then Panaonsaw someone place
something inside the jacket of Laylo as he
heard Laylo say, Wala kayong makukuha dito
- Teresita Marquez (Marquez) testified that while she
was fetching water from the well on 17 December
2005, at around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., she
heard Laylos son shouting, Amang, Amang.
Marquez then saw the child run to his father, who
was with several male companions. Then someone
pulled Laylos collar and frisked him. Marquez
overheard someone uttering, Wala po, wala po.
Marquez went home after the incident. At around
9:00 in the evening, Ritwals daughter visited her
and borrowed money for Laylo and Ritwals release.
Marquez then accompanied Ritwals daughter to
the municipal hall, where a man
demanded P40,000.00 for the couples release.

24