People v Edward Feliciano

G.R. No. 190179 October 20, 2010

Facts:

In 1996 in Pasig City, the accused Feliciano, Laurora, Maglalang, Estrella and Ruelo conspiring
together sold, delivered and gave away to PO2 Badalf V. Monte, a police poseur buyer, one pc. heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, which was
found positive to the test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of
RA 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accused were
also found positive to the test for methamphetamine. The RTC convicted Feliciano and Laurora for
violation of Section 5, Article 2 of R.A. 9165 for the sale of dangerous drugs, and Feliciano, Maglalang,
Laurora and Ruelo were convicted for violation of Section 15 for the use of dangerous drugs. The CA
affirmed.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused are guilty of violating RA 9165

Ruling:

The SC held that the buy-bust operation was legitimate and valid, and as such, the illegal
drugs seized were admissible in evidence. The chain of custody was also properly established
pursuant to Section 21 of RA 9165 which provides that that non-compliance with the requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures
of and custody over said items. Thus, the conviction for violation of Section 5 and Section 15, Article 2
of RA 9165 was affirmed.
People v. Manlangit

G.R. No. 189806 January 12, 2010

Facts:

On the 24th day of November 2003, the accused Manlangit sold and delivered 0.04 gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride which is a dangerous drug to poseur-buyer Wilfredo Serrano
who was actually a MADAC operative. He was also found positive for use of shabu after a
confirmatory test. The RTC found the accused guilty of drug sale under Section 5, Article 2 of RA 9165
and of drug use under Section 15, Article 2. The CA affirmed the conviction, stating that prior
surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of violating RA 9165

Ruling:

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of
corpus delicti. The SC held that the pieces of evidence amply demonstrate that all the elements of
the crimes charged were satisfied. Further, the arrest was a valid warrantless arrest because the
accused was caught in the act of committing the offense, and as long as the chain of custody
remains unbroken, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of RA 9165 was
not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected. Thus, the conviction was
affirmed.
Mallillin v. People

G.R. No. 172953 April 30, 2008

Facts:

On the strength of a warrant[6] of search and seizure issued by the RTC of Sorsogon City,
Branch 52, a team of five police officers raided the residence of petitioner in Barangay
Tugos, Sorsogon City on 4 February 2003. The search conducted in the presence
of barangay kagawad Delfin Licup as well as petitioner himself, his wife Sheila and his mother,
Norma, allegedly yielded 2 plastic sachets of shabu and five 5 empty plastic sachets containing
residual morsels of the said substance. The RTC found the petitioner guilty of violating Section
11,[7] Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, stating that the fact that shabu was found in the house of
petitioner was prima facie evidence of petitioner’s animus possidendi sufficient to convict him of the
charge. The CA affirmed.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of violating RA 9165

Ruling:

Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of
possession of a prohibited substance be established with moral certainty, together with the fact that
the same is not authorized by law. The mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to
create the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. It is the chain of custody requirement
that ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. In this
case, the prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the seized drugs, more so
because the chain of custody has not been sufficiently established. Thus, petitioner was acquitted on
the ground of reasonable doubt.
People v. Alfredo Lazaro

G.R. No. 186418 October 16, 2009

Facts:

On 17 June 2004, two separate informations were filed before the RTC against appellant for
illegal sale and possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, for
allegedly selling 1 small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride known as Shabu in the amount of should be P300, weighing 0.05 gram to Poseur
Buyer SPO1 Dennis G. Indunan, for having in his possession 0.04 grams of shabu, and for testing
positive for methamphetamine in a Qualitative Examination conducted on the urine sample taken
from him. The RTC convicted appellant for violation of Sections 5, 15 and 11 of Article 2 of RA 9165.
The CA modified in that it acquitted appellant on the charge of drug use under Section 15.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellant is guilty of violation RA 9165

Ruling:

In prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article 2 of RA 9165, what is material
is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti as evidence.30In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish, through
testimonial, documentary and object evidence, the said elements. Illegal possession under Section 11
was also proven beyond reasonable doubt because the appellant was caught in the act of selling
shabu and the subsequent search made upon him produced the 0.04 grams of shabu presented as
evidence following the rules on the chain of custody as provided for in Section 21, Article 2 of RA
9165. Hence, conviction was affirmed.
People v. Elamparo

G.R. No. 121572 March 31, 2000

Facts:

On February 12, 1995, Police Officer Romeo Baldonado received a report from an informant
that "some people are selling shabu and marijuana somewhere at Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City”.
Hence, he formed a "buy-bust" operation team and proceeded to the area. Poseur-buyer Gaviola
bought from runner Erwin Spencer marijuana with marked money, after which he arrested Spencer
who freed himself and ran. The police officers pursued Spencer into a house. They entered and
arrested Spencer and also saw the appellant Elamparo repacking 5 bricks of marijuana. He was also
arrested. The RTC found appellant guilty of violation of Section 8, Art. II of R.A. 6425 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.

Issue:

Whether or not appellant is guilty of violating RA 6425

Ruling:

The search and seizure conducted falls under the plain view doctrine which provides that
objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain
view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur (a) the law enforcement officer in
search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can
view a particular area; (b) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; (c) it is
immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime,
contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. Appellant having been fully apprised of the elements of
the crime of illegal possession of prohibited drugs, he may properly be convicted of the crime of
illegal possession of marijuana under Section 8 of RA 6425. However, being only 17 years old at the
time the crime was committed, he is entitled to a reduced penalty due to the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority under Article 13 (2) of the Revised Penal Code.