People v. Carlos Dela Cruz
He dropped his shotgun when a
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the November 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02286 entitled People of the Philippines v. Carlos Dela Cruz which
affirmed the September 16, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77 in
San Mateo, Rizal in Criminal Case Nos. 6517 (Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Ammunition) and 6518 (Possession of Dangerous Drug). The RTC found accused-
appellant Carlos Dela Cruz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11(2) of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On November 15, 2002, charges against accused-appellant were made before the RTC.
The Informations read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 6517
That, on or about the 20th day of October 2002, in the Municipality of San Mateo,
Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, being then a private citizen, without any lawful authority, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and under his
custody and control One (1) Gauge Shotgun marked ARMSCOR with Serial No. 1108533
loaded with four (4) live ammunition, which are high powered firearm and ammunition
respectively, without first securing the necessary license to possess or permit to carry
said firearm and ammunition from the proper authorities.
Criminal Case No. 6518
That on or about the 20th day of October 2002, in the Municipality of San Mateo,
Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic bag weighing 49.84 grams of white crystalline substance,
which gave positive results for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[1]
Accused-appellant entered a not guilty plea and trial ensued.
The facts, according to the prosecution, showed that in the morning of October 20, 2002,
an informant tipped off the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Marikina Police Station that
wanted drug pusher Wifredo Loilo alias Boy Bicol was at his nipa hut hideout in San
Mateo, Rizal. A team was organized to arrest Boy Bicol. Once there, they saw Boy Bicol by
a table talking with accused-appellant. They shouted Boy Bicol sumuko ka na may
warrant of arrest ka. (Surrender yourself Boy Bicol you have a warrant of arrest.) Upon
hearing this, Boy Bicol engaged them in a shootout and was fatally shot. Accused-
appellant was seen holding a shotgun through a window.
police officer pointed his firearm at him. The team entered the nipa hut and
apprehended accused-appellant. They saw a plastic bag of suspected shabu, a digital
weighing scale, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and magazines lying on the table. PO1
Calanoga, Jr. put the markings CVDC, the initials of accused-appellant, on the bag
containing the seized drug.
Accused-appellant was subsequently arrested. The substance seized from the hideout
was sent to the Philippine National Police crime laboratory for examination and tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. He was thus separately indicted
for violation of RA 9165 and for illegal possession of firearm.
According to the defense, accused-appellant was at Boy Bicols house having been asked
to do a welding job for Boy Bicols motorcycle. While accused-appellant was there,
persons who identified themselves as police officers approached the place, prompting
accused-appellant to scamper away. He lied face down when gunshots rang. The buy-
bust team then helped him get up. He saw the police officers searching the premises and
finding shabu and firearms, which were on top of a table or drawer.[2] When he asked
the reason for his apprehension, he was told that it was because he was a companion of
Boy Bicol. He denied under oath that the gun and drugs seized were found in his
possession and testified that he was only invited by Boy Bicol to get the motorcycle from
his house.[3]
The RTC acquitted accused-appellant of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition but
convicted him of possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the RTC
Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Court based on insufficiency of evidence hereby ACQUITS accused
CARLOS DELA CRUZ Y VICTORINO in Criminal Case No. 6517 for violation of P.D. 1866 as
amended by RA 8294.
In Criminal Case No. 6518 for Possession of Dangerous Drug under Section 11, 2nd
paragraph of Republic Act 9165, the Court finds said accused CARLOS DELA CRUZ Y
VICTORINO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to Life
Imprisonment and to Pay a Fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00).
SO ORDERED.[4]
On December 7, 2005, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the RTC Decision.
In his appeal to the CA, accused-appellant claimed that: (1) the version of the prosecution
should not have been given full credence; (2) the prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that he was guilty of possession of an illegal drug; (3) his arrest was
patently illegal; and (4) the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the
illegal drug allegedly in his possession.
The CA sustained accused-appellants conviction.[5] It pointed out that accused-appellant
was positively identified by prosecution witnesses, rendering his uncorroborated denial
and allegation of frame-up weak. As to accused-appellants alleged illegal arrest, the CA
held that he is deemed to have waived his objection when he entered his plea, applied
for bail, and actively participated in the trial without questioning such arrest.
On the supposedly broken chain of custody of the illegal drug, the appellate court held
that accused-appellants claim is unpersuasive absent any evidence showing that the
plastic sachet of shabu had been tampered or meddled with.
On December 20, 2007, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal of the CA Decision.
On June 25, 2008, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs if they so
desired. The parties later signified their willingness to submit the case on the basis of the
records already with the Court.
Accused-appellant presents the following issues before us:
I the prior or contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE VERSION OF THE
PROSECUTION
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF
VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II, RA 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT
III
TE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE
OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT ILLEGALITY OF HIS ARREST
IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II, RA 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ILLEGAL DRUG ALLEGEDLY
FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION
Accused-appellant claims that the presence of all the elements of the offense of
possession of dangerous drug was not proved beyond reasonable doubt since both actual
and constructive possessions were not proved. He asserts that the shabu was not found
in his actual possession, for which reason the prosecution was required to establish that
he had constructive possession over the shabu. He maintains that as he had no control
and dominion over the drug or over the place where it was found, the prosecution
likewise failed to prove constructive possession.
The Courts Ruling
The appeal has merit.
The elements in illegal possession of dangerous drug are: (1) the accused is in possession
of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[6]
On the third element, we have held that the possession must be with knowledge of the
accused or that animus possidendi existed with the possession or control of said
articles.[7] Considering that as to this knowledge, a persons mental state of awareness of
a fact is involved, we have ruled that:
Since courts cannot penetrate the mind of an accused and thereafter state its
perceptions with certainty, resort to other evidence is necessary. Animus possidendi, as a
state of mind, may be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration
circumstances. Its existence may and usually must be inferred from the attendant events
in each particular case.[8]
The prior or contemporaneous acts of accused-appellant show that: he was inside the
nipa hut at the time the buy-bust operation was taking place; he was talking to Boy Bicol
inside the nipa hut; he was seen holding a shotgun; when PO1 Calanoga, Jr. pointed his
firearm at accused-appellant, the latter dropped his shotgun; and when apprehended, he
was in a room which had the seized shabu, digital weighing scale, drug paraphernalia,
ammunition, and magazines. Accused-appellant later admitted that he knew what the
content of the seized plastic bag was.[9]
Given the circumstances, we find that the prosecution failed to establish possession of
the shabu, whether in its actual or constructive sense, on the part of accused-appellant.
The two buy-bust team members corroborated each others testimonies on how they
saw Boy Bicol talking to accused-appellant by a table inside the nipa hut. That table, they
testified, was the same table where they saw the shabu once inside the nipa hut. This
fact was used by the prosecution to show that accused-appellant exercised dominion and
control over the shabu on the table. We, however, find this too broad an application of
the concept of constructive possession.
In People v. Torres,[10] we held there was constructive possession of prohibited drugs
even when the accused was not home when the prohibited drugs were found in the
masters bedroom of his house.
In People v. Tira,[11] we sustained the conviction of the accused husband and wife for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Their residence was searched and their bed was
found to be concealing illegal drugs underneath. We held that the wife cannot feign
ignorance of the drugs existence as she had full access to the room, including the space
under the bed.
In Abuan v. People,[12] we affirmed the finding that the accused was in constructive
possession of prohibited drugs which had been found in the drawer located in her
bedroom.
In all these cases, the accused was held to be in constructive possession of illegal drugs
since they were shown to enjoy dominion and control over the premises where these
drugs were found.
In the instant case, however, there is no question that accused-appellant was not the
owner of the nipa hut that was subject of the buy-bust operation. He did not have
dominion or control over the nipa hut. Neither was accused-appellant a tenant or
occupant of the nipa hut, a fact not disputed by the prosecution. The target of the
operation was Boy Bicol. Accused-appellant was merely a guest of Boy Bicol. But in spite
of the lack of evidence pinning accused-appellant to illegal possession of drugs, the trial
court declared the following:
It cannot be denied that when the accused was talking with Boy Bicol he knew that the
shabu was on the table with other items that were confiscated by the police operatives.
The court [surmises] that the accused and boy Bicol were members of a gang hiding in
that nipa hut where they were caught red-handed with prohibited items and dangerous
[drugs].[13]
The trial court cannot assume, based on the prosecutions evidence, that accused-
appellant was part of a gang dealing in illegal activities. Apart from his presence in Boy
Bicols nipa hut, the prosecution was not able to show his participation in any drug-
dealing. He was not even in possession of drugs in his person. He was merely found inside
a room with shabu, not as the rooms owner or occupant but as a guest. While he
allegedly pointed a firearm at the buy-bust team, the prosecution curiously failed to
produce the firearm that accused-appellant supposedly used.
The prosecution in this case clearly failed to show all the elements of the crime absent a
showing of either actual or constructive possession by the accused-appellant.
Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicols nipa hut,
his subsequent arrest was also invalid. Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure on
warrantless arrest provides:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be
arrested has committed it; and
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another.
The warrantless arrest of accused-appellant was effected under Sec. 5(a), arrest of a
suspect in flagrante delicto. For this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites
must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2)
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.[14]
Accused-appellants act of pointing a firearm at the buy-bust team would have been
sufficient basis for his arrest in flagrante delicto; however, the prosecution was not able
to adequately prove that accused-appellant was committing an offense. Although
accused-appellant merely denied possessing the firearm, the prosecutions charge was
weak absent the presentation of the alleged firearm. He was eventually acquitted by the
trial court because of this gaffe. His arrest, independent of the buy-bust operation
targeting Boy Bicol, was therefore not lawful as he was not proved to be committing any
offense.
In sum, we find that there is insufficient evidence to show accused-appellants guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. Having ruled on the lack of material or constructive possession
by accused-appellant of the seized shabu and his succeeding illegal arrest, we deem it
unnecessary to deal with the other issue raised.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The CA Decision dated November 29, 2007 in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02286 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Carlos Dela Cruz is
ACQUITTED of violation of Sec. 11(2) of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 6518 of the RTC,
Branch 77 in San Mateo, Rizal.
Margarita Ambre y Cayuni, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, respondent.
G. R. No. 191532. August 15, 2012

Facts:

On or about April 20, 2005, the Caloocan Police Station Anti-Illegal Drug-Special
Operation Unit conducted a buy-bust operation pursuant to a tip from a police informant
that a certain Abdullah Sultan and his wife Ina Aderp was engaged in the selling of
dangerous drugs at a residential compound in Caloocan City; that buy-bust operation
resulted in the arrest of Aderp and a certain Moctar Tagoranao; that Sultan run away
from the scene of the entrapment operation and PO3 Moran, PO2 Masi and PO1 Mateo,
pursued him; that in the course of the chase, Sultan led the said police officers to his
house; that inside the house, he police operatives found Ambre, Castro and Mendoza
having a pot session; that Ambre in particular, was caught sniffing what was suspected to
be a shabu in a rolled up alumni foil; and that PO3 Moran ran after Sultan while PO2
Masi and PO1 Mateo arrested Ambre, Castro and Mendoza for illegal use of shabu.

Ambre insists that the warrantless arrest and search made against her were illegal
because no offense was being committed at the time and the police operatives were not
authorized by a judicial order to enter the dwelling of Sultan. She argues that the alleged
“hot pursuit” on Sultan which ended in the latter's house, where she, Mendoza and
Castro were supposedly found having a pot session, was more imaginary than real.

Issues:
1.) Whether the warrantless arrest of Ambre and the search of her person was valid; and
2.) Whether the items seized are inadmissible in evidence

Ruling:
Yes, the Court held that the arrest and search done against the petitioner is valid. Section
5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides three (3) instances when
warrantless arrest may be lawfully effected: (a) arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto; (b)
arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is
probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been
committed; (c) arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment
or temporarily confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
In arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is apprehended at the very moment he is
committing or attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in the presence of
the arresting officer. Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer.
EDRO CUPCUPIN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
DECISION
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari, seeking to set aside the November 27, 1997
decision of the Court of Appeals,[1] in CA-G.R. CR No. 17334, which affirmed with
modification the November 18, 1994 decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon,
Branch 170, wherein petitioner Pedro Cupcupin was found guilty of the crimes of
violation of Section 16, Article III, Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and of violation of Section 1, Presidential Decree 1866,
otherwise known as the Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, in Criminal
Case No. 13374-MN and Criminal Case No.13375-MN. 5784, respectively.
The Informations filed against petitioner read:
In Criminal Case No. 13374-MN for violation of Section 16, Article III, Republic Act 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended:
That on 05 March 1993 in Malabon and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess
approximately 38.2085 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, popularly known as
shabu, a regulated drug, without the corresponding license or prescription therefor.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[3]
In Criminal Case No. 13375-MN for violation of Section 1, Presidential Decree 1866,
otherwise known as the Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Ammunition:
That on 05 March 1993 in Malabon and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
custody, control and possession of:
one (1) M16 Baby Armalite rifle with defaced serial no. and fully loaded magazine one (1)
Browning pistol without serial no. with fully loaded magazine
two (2) empty magazine for Armalite
without lawful authority therefore.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[4]
Upon arraignment on August 5, 1993, petitioner pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits
thereafter ensued.[5]
The version of the prosecution can be synthesized as follows: Based on a confidential
information that petitioner, Pedro Cupcupin is engaged in selling methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu), and in possession of firearms and ammunitions without the
necessary license, NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano of the National Capital Region, conducted a
surveillance on the vicinity of petitioners residence at Int. David Santos, C. Arellano
Streets, Malabon, Metro Manila. After confirming said confidential information, Agent
Rejano applied for the issuance of search warrants before Judge Romeo J. Callejo,[6] of
the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49.[7]
On March 3, 1993, Judge Romeo J. Callejo issued the following search warrants:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff, SEARCH WARRANT NO. 56-93
- versus -
FOR: VIOLATION OF SECTION 16
PEDRO CUPCUPIN ARTICLE III, of REPUBLIC
Int. David Santos, C. Arellano ACT 6425, AS AMENDED
Street, Malabon, Metro
Manila
Accused.
x ------------------------------------- x
SEARCH WARRANT
TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:
Upon sufficient showing of the existence of probable cause, after determination
personally by the Judge on examination under oath of the applicant and his witness by
means of searching questions and answers thereto, based on the facts personally known
to them that Respondent Pedro Cupcupin residing at said address, had been and still is
using the said premises, for the possession and/or use of regulated substance known as
methamphetamine hydrochloride (SHABU) in violation of section 16 of Republic Act
6425, as amended.
WHEREFORE, the Court commands you to conduct an immediate search, at any time of
the day or night, including Saturdays and Sundays, on the premises at the above address,
including the rooms located therein, and seize the following:
UNDETERMINED QUANTITY OF METAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU) c) One (1) .9 mm. pistol;

and to bring the same before the Court for proper disposition in accordance with law. d) Two (2) M-16 armalite rifles; and

You shall make a return of the warrant to the Court within ten (10) days from today. e) One (1) .22 cal. pistol

SO ORDERED.[8] and bring the same before the Court for proper disposition in accordance with law.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES You shall make a return of the warrant to the Court within ten (10) days from today.

Plaintiff, SEARCH WARRANT NO. 57-93 SO ORDERED.[9]

- versus - On March 5, 1993, at about 7 a.m., the team composed of Supervising Agent Eduard
Villarta, NBI agents Timoteo Rejano, Ruel Lasala, Narciso Pea, Jr., Joel Consador, Ceres
FOR: VIOLATION OF Delapa-Cabrera, Ernesto Cabrera and Special Investigators Arthur Oliveros and Ariel Nuez
and SPO1 Olazo, raided the house of petitioner located at Int. David Santos and C.
PEDRO CUPCUPIN PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 1866 Arellano Streets, Malabon, Metro Manila,[10] which consisted of a 2-storey house made
up of strong materials and a workshop room at the ground floor made up of light
Int. David Santos, C. Arellano (SECTION 1) materials.[11]

Street, Malabon, Metro The NBI agents presented the search warrants and introduced themselves to the
petitioner and his wife, Adelfa Cupcupin. Upon their request, the NBI agents waited for
Manila petitioners mother, Iluminada Cupcupin and in their presence, the team searched the
bedroom at the second floor and found a fully-loaded M16 armalite rifle underneath the
Accused. bed. They likewise found a semi-automatic browning pistol and two empty magazines of
armalite inside a drawer of a table found in the same bedroom. Agents Rejano and
x ------------------------------------- x Consador inscribed their respective initials and date on the handle of the rifle and the
pistol.[12] An Inventory of the items seized was thereafter signed by Adelfa Cupcupin,
SEARCH WARRANT Elumina Cupcupin, and the petitioner.[13]

TO ANY PEACE OFFICER:
Upon sufficient showing of the existence of probable cause, after determination
personally by the Judge on examination under oath of the applicant and his witness by
means of searching questions, and answers thereto, based on the facts personally known
to them, that Accused Pedro Cupcupin residing at said address, had been and still in
possession of assorted firearms herein below listed, without the requisite license
therefore, in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866.
WHEREFORE, the Court commands you to conduct an immediate search, at any time of
the day and night, including Saturdays, on the premises at the above address including
the rooms located therein and seize the following:
a) Two (2) .45 cal. pistols;
Thereafter, the team searched the workshop room, again in the presence of petitioner,
his wife, and his mother.[14] Seized from petitioners workshop room were the following:
1) nine (9) plastic packs of white crystalline substance found inside a box [of] ETERNITY;
2) one improvised water pipe; 3) one (1) improvised burner; 4) one (1) weighing scale
marked TAVITA; 5) three (3) small tooters; 6) one pack of plastic pouches; 7) one electric
resealer; 8) aluminum foils; 9) five (5) assorted magazines for pistols; 10) one (1) rifle
grenade; 11) assorted bullets for M16, .45 cal and 9 mm.[15] An inventory of the items
seized was prepared and thereafter signed and acknowledged by Adelfa Cupcupin,
Elumina Cupcupin, and the petitioner.[16]
Upon examination by NBI Forensic Chemist Aida R. Viloria-Magsipoc, the nine plastic
packs of white crystalline substance seized from the workshop room of petitioner, turned
out to be 38.0201 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, popularly known as
shabu.[17]

b) One (1) .38 cal. revolver; Petitioner, on the other hand, raised the defense of frame-up. He alleged that between
6:00 to 7:00 in the morning of March 5, 1993, while he was resting at the ground floor of
his house in the company of his wife, Adelfa Cupcupin and their two children, the team of
NBI agents arrived. They searched his house and detained him and his family at the
ground floor. He denied ownership and possession of the illegal items allegedly seized
from his house but admitted ownership of the automatic browning pistol found in his
bedroom. He produced a Certification from the PNP Firearms and Explosive Division
showing that said browning, cal. 9mm pistol with Serial No. 245PZ84617 is registered in
his name.[18] After the search and while in handcuffs, he was forced to sign some
documents which turned out to be an inventory receipt and a search warrant.[19]
Petitioner further declared that the charges against him are purely harassment because
in 1991 he had been previously charged, but was subsequently acquitted of illegal
possession of regulated drugs and firearms in Criminal Case Nos. 10108-MN and 10109-
MN, respectively, before Branch 72, of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon.[20]
On November 18, 1994, a decision was rendered by the trial court convicting petitioner,
to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 13374, finding accused Pedro Cucupin guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Violation of Section 16, Article III, Republic Act 6425, as further amended by
Republic Act 7659 and considering the quantity of the Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
involved in this case, hereby sentences him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of One (1)
Year, Eight (8) Months and Twenty (20) Days as minimum, to Four (4) Years, Two (2)
Months and One (1) Day as maximum, & to pay the cost;
2. In Criminal Case No. 13375, finding accused Pedro Cupcupin guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, hereby sentences him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of Seventeen (17) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day as
minimum, to Eighteen (18) Years, Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day as maximum, and to
pay the cost of this suit.
The unlicensed M16 baby armalite, magazines, assorted ammunitions,
methamphetamine hydrochloride and the paraphernalia presented as evidence are all
forfeited in favor of the government, and the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn
over the same to the PNP Firearms and Explosive Office and Dangerous Drugs Board for
proper disposition.
The 9mm automatic pistol is hereby ordered returned to accused Pedro Cupcupin.
SO ORDERED.[21]
On appeal, the judgment of conviction was affirmed, but modified as to the penalties, to
wit:
WHEREFORE, the decision subject of this appeal is AFFIRMED with modifications as to the
penalties imposed:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 13374-MN for violation of R.A. No. 6425, accused-appellant is
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Six (6) Months of
arresto mayor, as minimum, to Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months of prision correccional,
as minimum.
(2) In Criminal Case No. 13375-MN for violation of P.D. No. 1866, accused-appellant shall
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Six (6) Years of prision correccional,
as minimum, to Eight (8) Years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay a fine of thirty
thousand pesos (P30,000.00).
SO ORDERED.[22]
Hence, the instant petition raising the following errors:
I
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE SEARCH
WARRANTS WERE LEGALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY INFIRM, INVALID AND VOID, THEY
NOT HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE INDESPENSABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE
THEREOF.
II
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL FAITH AND CREDENCE TO
THE WITNESSES OF THE PROSECUTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE WITNESSES, WHO
WERE NBI AGENTS, WERE ACTUATED WITH MALICE, IMPROPER MOTIVE AND
COMMITTED IRREGULAR ACTS IN SECURING AND IMPLEMENTING THE
AFOREMENTIONED SEARCH WARRANTS.
III
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND PROBATIVE
VALUE TO THE EARLIER JOINT DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENSES OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 15 OF THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT AND
VIOLATION OF P.D. 1866, WHICH ARE THE SAME OFFENSES NOW SUBJECT OF THE
INSTANT CASES AND WHERIN THE PETITIONER HAD BEEN CONVICTED BY THE TRIAL
COURT AND AFFIRMED BY THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS.
IV
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED-
PETITIONER OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED, THE SAME NOT HAVING BEEN PROVED
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[23]
Petitioner contends that the items allegedly seized from his residence are inadmissible as
evidence because the search warrants issued against him failed to comply with the
constitutional and statutory requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant.
Specifically, petitioner claims that said warrants were defective on the grounds that: (1)
NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano who applied for the issuance thereof had no personal
knowledge of the facts on which the warrants were based; and (2) subject warrants failed
to particularly describe the place to be searched because there are two houses located in
the address stated in the said warrants.
The contentions are without merit.
Sections 2 and 3 (2), Article III, of the Constitution state:
SEC. 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.
SEC. 3. x x x
xxxxxxxxx
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
Under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the
requisites for the issuance of a valid search warrant are as follows:
SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. A search warrant shall not issue except
upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witness he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. (3a)
SEC. 5. Examination of complainant; record. The judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under
oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to
them and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits
submitted. (4a)
In determining probable cause in the issuance of a search warrant, the oath required
must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant or his
witnesses, because the purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not
the individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant, of the
existence of probable cause. Search warrants are not issued on loose, vague or doubtful
basis of fact, nor on mere suspicion or belief.[24]
In the case at bar, NBI Agent Timoteo Rejano who applied for the issuance of Search
Warrant Nos. 56-93 and 57-93, had personal knowledge of the circumstances on which
the warrants were based. Admittedly, Rejanos knowledge of petitioners illegal possession
of firearms and prohibited drugs came from a confidential informant, and therefore,
initially hearsay. Nevertheless, the surveillance and investigation he conducted on the
basis of said confidential information enabled him to gain personal knowledge of the
illegal activities of petitioner.[25] Hence, his testimony was sufficient justification for the
examining judge to conclude that there was probable cause for the issuance of a search
warrant.
Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the records show that there is only one house located
in the address to be searched. The residence of petitioner consisted of a structure with
two floors, made up of strong materials and a workshop room at the ground floor made
up of light materials. The unrebutted testimony of the prosecution witnesses reveal that
inside the main house is an alley connected to the door of the workshop room. Pertinent
portion of the testimony of NBI Agent Consador, one of the members of the raiding team,
reads:
Court (witness)
Q Where is the house of the accused located?
A It is located at the corner of Arellano St., Your Honor.
Q Malabon?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Is there a number in the house of the accused?
A I cannot recall, Your Honor.
Q How many structures are there in the premises of Pedro Cupcupin?
A As I remember, there are two structures but it looks like they are adjacent, one big and
the other one like nipa hut but they are adjacent, Your Honor.
Q What do you mean adjacent?
A The small structure is connected to the big structure, Your Honor.
Q When you say connected, will you tell the court what do you mean.
A When you enter the structure, there is a door that can be opened at the small
structure, Your Honor.
Q Without going outside of the house?

A Yes, Your Honor.
Q Do we understand from you that there is a connecting alley inside the bigger structure
going to the small structure?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q These two structures belong to Pedro Cupcupin?
A Yes, Your Honor.
x x x x x x x x x.[26]
Likewise relevant is the testimony of Agent Rejano, thus:
xxxxxxxxx
A We go back now to the two buildings which you said in your own opinion is only one. I
am showing to you the picture which was taken by your photographer, is this the
scenario of the place where [the] two buildings depicted in the picture marked as Exhibit
N? A two stor[e]y house is depicted at the left hand portion of Exhibit M that would be
the house you are alluding to as the house which you first entered the second floor
despite the fact that you will pass the ground floor that is the building you are alluding in
that statement of yours or testimony of yours a while ago?
A Yes, sir.
Q How about a structure depicted at the right hand portion in between the two vehicles,
is it part also of the residence of Cupcupin?
A It is part of the residence and while inside the edifice there is no divider, sir.
Q You will agree with me Mr. witness that despite the fact that there is no division, two
vehicles were parked in between the two structures, one jeep and a passenger jeep. My
question is, you will agree with me that despite the fact [that] there was no division, two
structures were clearly depicted in Exhibit N?
A As I have said in my observation, there is only one structure because in between
seemingly two structures, there is a corridor connecting the two structures. While inside
the said edifice, there is only one structure, sir.
x x x x x x x x x.[27]
It is clear from the foregoing that the workshop room where the packs of shabu were
found is actually an integral part of petitioners residence. Hence, it cannot be argued that
there are two houses in the address stated in the warrants and that the same failed to
particularly describe the place to be searched. The rule is that a description of the place
to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched. Tested against the foregoing
rule, the Court finds that the residence of petitioner stated in the warrants as Int. David
Santos, C. Arellano Street, Malabon, Metro Manila, can with reasonable effort be
ascertained and identified by the NBI agents who were ordered to search the above
address, including the rooms located therein.[28]
It must be stressed that petitioner does not deny ownership, access to and more
importantly, immediate physical occupancy and control over said workshop room and his
entire residence. As a matter of law, when prohibited and regulated drugs are found in a
house or other building belonging to and occupied by a particular person, the
presumption arises that such person is in possession of such drugs in violation of law, and
the fact of finding the same is sufficient to convict. Otherwise stated, the finding of the
drugs in the building owned by petitioner raised the presumption of knowledge and,
standing alone, was sufficient to convict.[29]
It may be argued that in the cases of illegal possession of regulated drugs and firearms
filed against petitioner in 1991, in Criminal Case Nos. 10108-MN and 10109- MN,
respectively, before Branch 72, of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, the trial court
found that the nipa hut near the house of petitioner is owned by a certain Benjamin
Santos.[30] But since it was not shown that said nipa hut is the same workshop room
referred to in the present case, and that the factual circumstances on which the finding
that subject nipa hut is not owned by petitioner, still holds true in the instant case, the
Court cannot rule that there are indeed two houses in the address stated in the search
warrants issued against petitioner. At any rate, it is not the ownership of the place where
the illegal items were seized that matters. What is decisive is that, it is the petitioner who
had access to and control over said workshop room being an integral part of his house.
In criminal cases involving prohibited drugs, there can be no conviction unless the
prosecution shows that the accused knowingly possessed the prohibited articles in his
person, or that animus possidendi is shown to be present together with his possession or
control of such article.[31] Animus possidendi is only prima facie. It is subject to contrary
proof and may be rebutted by evidence that the accused did not in fact exercise power
and control over the thing in question, and did not intend to do so. The burden of
evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi.[32]
In the instant case, petitioner failed to present any evidence to rebut the existence of
animus possidendi over the armalite rifle and the packs of shabu found in his residence.
The mere uncorroborated statement that he was not aware of the existence of said
illegal items in his house is insufficient.[33] Moreover, the defense of frame-up raised by
petitioner is a common and standard line of defense which is invariably viewed by this
Court with disfavor, it being capable of easy concoction and difficult to prove.
Considering that no clear and convincing evidence was presented to prove that he was
really framed up, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as
well as the principle that findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are
entitled to great respect, must prevail over the petitioners imputation of ill-motive and maximum, and to pay a fine of P30,000.00 for illegal possession of firearm under Section
harassment on the part of the NBI Agents who conducted the search.[34] 1, of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294, in Criminal Case No. 13375-MN.

For the crime of illegal possession of regulated drugs, the Court of Appeals correctly SO ORDERED.
deleted the excess of 1 day in the maximum penalty imposed by the trial court, i.e., four
(4) years, two (2) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional. In People v.
Medenilla,[35] the Court held that if the regulated drug weighs less than 66.67 grams,
then the penalty is prision correctional, if 66.67 grams or more but less than 133.33
grams, then the penalty is prision mayor, and if 133.33 grams or more, but less than 200
grams, then the penalty is reclusion temporal. Considering that 38.0201 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or shabu is involved in the case at bar, the proper
penalty is prision correccional. There being no attendant modifying circumstance the
maximum period of the imposable penalty, cannot exceed two (2) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months, the medium period of prision
correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum period of the
imposable penalty shall be within the range of arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6
months), the penalty next lower in degree to prision correccional.

Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
2002, increased the penalty for illegal possession of 10 grams or more but less than 50
grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu to life imprisonment and a fine
ranging from four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00). However, said law not being favorable to the accused, cannot be
given retroactive application in the instant case.

Under Republic Act 8294, amending P.D. No. 1866, the penalty for illegal possession of
firearms classified as high powered, like an M16 armalite rifle,[36] is prision mayor
minimum and a fine of P30,000.00. No modifying circumstance having been proven, the
penalty shall be imposed in its medium period.[37] Applying the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, the maximum period of the imposable penalty cannot exceed the medium period of
prision mayor minimum, i.e., six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seven (7)
years and four (4) months. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in fixing the maximum
period of the imposable penalty to eight (8) years of prision mayor. The minimum period
shall be within the range of prision correccional in its maximum period (4 years, 2 months
and 1 day to 6 years), the penalty next lower in degree to prision mayor minimum.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the November 27, 1997 decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 17334, finding petitioner Pedro Cupcupin guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal possession of regulated drugs and illegal
possession of firearm is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. As modified, petitioner is
sentenced to suffer: (1) the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6)
months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four (4) years and two (2) months, of prision
correccional, as maximum in Criminal Case No. 13374-MN, for illegal possession of
regulated drugs under Section 16, of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659; and (2)
the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years of prision
correccional, as minimum, to seven (7) years and four (4) months of prision mayor, as
People v. Alivio
Brion L.
On appeal to this Court is the Decision,[1] dated November 30, 2006, of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01138, which affirmed the Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 70, Pasig City, in Criminal Case Nos. 12450-52-D. The
RTC convicted Arielito Alivio y Oliveros and Ernesto dela Vega (collectively referred to as
appellants) of violating Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Arraignment and Plea
In Criminal Case No. 12450-D, the Information charged the appellants of selling shabu, as
follows:
the accused, conspiring and confederating together, and both of them mutually helping
and aiding one another, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO2 Lemuel Laro, a police
poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing six (6) centigrams
(0.06 gram) of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.[3]
In Criminal Case No. 12451-D, Dela Vega was charged of possessing shabu under the
following Information:
the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug; did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody
and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ten (10) decigrams
(0.10 gram), of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.[4]
Finally, in Criminal Case No. 12452-D, Alivio was charged of possessing drug
paraphernalia consisting of two disposable lighters, an improvised tooter and an
improvised burner. The pertinent portion of the Information states:
the accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess paraphernalia or otherwise use any
dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession two (2) pcs. of disposable lighters, one (1) improvised tooter and one (1)
improvised burner, which are all instruments, equipment, apparatus or paraphernalia, fit
or intended for smoking, sniffing, consuming or introducing methamphetamine
hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said
law.[5]
The appellants pleaded not guilty to all the charges and trial on the merits followed.
The Version of the Prosecution
The prosecutions case relied on the theory that the police apprehended the appellants
during a buy-bust operation conducted at Alivios residence. During the buy-bust
operation, the police found drug paraphernalia at Alivios residence while a search on
Dela Vegas person yielded one plastic sachet of shabu which the police seized.
The prosecutions evidence showed that at around 9:30 p.m. of May 20, 2003, the Pasig
City Police received a tip from an asset that one Ariel was rampantly selling illegal drugs
in Bagong Ilog, Pasig City. A buy-bust team was immediately formed in coordination with
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The buy-bust money, which consisted of two
(2) 100 peso bills, was prepared and marked with the symbol, 3L. PO2 Lemuel Lagunay
Laro was designated to act as the poseur-buyer.
Together with SPO3 Lemuel Matias and PO1 Allan Mapula, PO2 Laro and the asset went
to the house of Ariel. While the rest of the buy-bust team strategically positioned
themselves at the target area, PO2 Laro and the asset met Ariel. The asset introduced
PO2 Laro to Ariel who was later on identified as Alivio. The asset told Alivio that they
wanted to buy shabu. Alivio asked how much they wanted to buy, to which the asset
replied: dalawang daan lang pre at saka puwede kaming gumamit dyan? The two were
ushered into the second floor of the house where they saw dela Vega seated in front of a
table with drug paraphernalia. PO2 Laro then gave the buy-bust money to Alivio who
handed it to Dela Vega. The latter then took out from his pocket one plastic sachet of
shabu which he gave to Alivio who handed it to PO2 Laro. After the exchange, PO2 Laro
introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Alivio and Dela Vega. The asset made a
signal for the buy-bust team to come inside the house. SPO3 Matias searched Dela Vega
and found him in possession of one plastic sachet of shabu. The buy-bust team also
retrieved the drug paraphernalia on top of the table, which paraphernalia they
correspondingly marked. The buy-bust team took Alivio, Dela Vega and the confiscated
items to the police station for investigation. Afterwards, the confiscated items were
taken by PO1 Mapula to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The two (2) plastic
sachets tested positive for shabu.
By agreement of the prosecution and the defense, the testimony of forensic chemist
P/Insp. Joseph Perdido was dispensed with and they entered stipulations on:
1) The due execution and genuineness of the Request for Laboratory Examination
dated May 20, 2003 which was marked in evidence as Exhibit A and the stamp showing
receipt thereof by the PNP Crime Laboratory as Exhibit A-1;
2) The due execution and genuineness, as well as the truth of the contents, of
Chemistry Report No. D-940-03E dated May 12, 2003 issued by Forensic Chemist P/Insp.
Joseph M. Perdido of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Eastern Police District, Saint Francis St.,
Mandaluyong City, which was marked in evidence as Exhibit B, the finding and conclusion
as appearing on the report as Exhibit B-1 and the signature of the forensic Chemist over
his typewritten name likewise as appearing on the report as Exhibit B-2;
3) The existence of the two (2) plastic sachets and other paraphernalia, but not their
source or origin, contained in an envelope, the contents of which were the subject of the
Request for Laboratory Examination, which where marked in evidence as follows: as
Exhibit C (the envelope), as Exhibit C-1 (the 1st plastic sachet), as Exhibit D (the
improvised tooter with markings EXH-E AAO dated 05-20-03), as Exhibit E (the improvised
burner) and as Exhibits F-1 & F-2 (the two disposable lighters).[6]
The Version of the Defense
The appellants anchored their defense on denial and frame-up. They denied selling shabu
and claimed that they were together that night drinking at the second floor of Alivios
residence. They also claimed that five (5) men (who turned out to be policemen)
suddenly barged in on them looking for a person named Bon-bon. When they replied that
neither of them was Bon-bon, the policemen frisked and arrested them. The policemen
took from the appellants their earnings for that day and the P5,000.00 cash they found in
the house. The appellants tried to resist arrest and suffered injuries as a result. [7]
Alivio additionally asserted that he could not have sold shabu to PO2 Laro since he knew
him to be a policeman. Alivio claimed that he was a former driver of Atty. Nelson Fajardo
whom he used to accompany to the police station where PO2 Laro was assigned.
The Ruling of the RTC
On February 28, 2005, the RTC convicted the appellants of all charges laid. The RTC relied
on the presumption of regularity in the buy-bust operation and the lack of improper
motive on the part of the police officers. The RTC rejected the proferred denial and
frame-up as defenses as they are inherently easy to concoct, and found that the
prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crimes charged and the
identity of the appellants as perpetrators. The RTC thus concluded:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 12450-D both accused Arielito Alivio and Ernesto Dela Vega are
hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5,
Article II, Republic Act 9165 (illegal sale of shabu) and are hereby sentenced to LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to solidarily pay a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(PHP500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12451-D accused Ernesto dela Vega is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act 9165
(illegal possession of shabu) and is hereby sentenced to Twelve (12) Years and One (1)
Day to Twenty (20) Years and to pay a Fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP
300,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12452-D accused Arielito Alivio is hereby found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 12, Article II, of Republic Act 9165
(illegal possession of drug paraphernalia) and is hereby sentenced to Six (6) Years and
One (1) Day to Four (4) Years and a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (PHP 10,000.00).[8]
The appellants appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
On November 30, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA took into account the
consistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to support the presumption that the
police officers regularly performed the buy-bust operation. The CA likewise ruled that the
appellants failed to substantiate their defenses.
The Issue
The appellants raised the following lone assignment of error:
THE [CA] ERRED IN FINDING THE [APPELLANTS] GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.[9]
The appellants argue that the lower courts erred in evaluating the testimonial evidence
when they placed undue reliance on the presumption of regularity and the absence of
improper motive on the part of the police officers to perpetuate the claimed
irregularities. The appellants assert that the presumption of regularity cannot take
precedence over the presumption of innocence in their favor.
The appellants also fault the lower courts for disregarding the defenses evidence that
showed Alivios familiarity with PO2 Laro as a policeman. They emphasize that this
evidence was corroborated by the testimony of defense witness Atty. Fajardo.
Finally, the appellants contend that the identities of the subject shabu were not
sufficiently proven since the seized items were not marked at the time the appellants
were apprehended.
The Courts Ruling
We find no reversible error committed by the RTC and the CA in convicting the
appellants of the crimes charged.
While the presumption of innocence is the highest in the hierarchy of presumptions, it
remains a rebuttable presumption. In a criminal case, the presumption of innocence can
be overcome by the presumption of regularity when the latter is accompanied by strong
evidence supporting the guilt of the accused.[10] Even without the presumption of
regularity, a drug conviction can be sustained through competent evidence establishing
the existence of all the elements of the crimes charged.
In this case, although the presumption of regularity did not arise considering the evident
lapses the police committed in the prescribed procedures, we rule that the prosecutions
evidence sufficiently established all the elements of the three (3) crimes charged and the
identity of the appellants as the perpetrators.
The existence of the buy-bust operation
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers
who conducted the buy-bust operation. Thus, we generally defer to the assessment on
this point by the trial court as it had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses,
their demeanor, and their credibility on the witness stand.[11] Our independent
examination of the records shows no compelling reason to depart from this rule.
First, the lower courts found the testimonies of PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias consistent,
positive and straightforward. These testimonies were corroborated by PO1 Mapula who
testified that the appellants were apprehended through a buy-bust operation.
Second, the records reveal the lack of improper motive on the part of the buy-bust team.
Appellant Alivio even admitted that he had no idea why the police officers filed the
present case against him.[12] Alivio also denied police extortion.[13]
Third, the appellants failure to file cases against the buy-bust team for planting evidence
undoubtedly supports the prosecutions theory that the appellants were arrested because
they were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu.
Fourth, the following documentary evidence presented by the prosecution corroborates
the existence of an actual buy-bust operation:
(a) The Pre-Opns Reports, made part of the records, showed that anti-narcotics
operations were conducted on May 20, 2003 against one @Ariel who was allegedly
involved in selling/trading of dangerous drugs.[14]
(b) The existence of the buy-bust money,[15] bearing the marking 3L, was presented
during the trial as part of PO2 Laros testimony.[16] According to PO2 Laro, the marking
stood for his initials which he placed on the buy-bust money for easy identification.
(c) The Affidavits of Arrest[17] by PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias executed immediately after
the arrest of the appellants showed that the arrests were made pursuant to a buy-bust
operation.[18]
Familiarity
The defense failed to sufficiently prove the alleged familiarity of appellant Alivio with PO2
Laro. The testimony of defense witness Atty. Fajardo failed to give out specific details on
the dates and occasions when he supposedly talked to PO2 Laro in the presence of
Alivio.[19] Moreover, the evidence also shows a time gap between Alivios employment
with Atty. Fajardo (from 2000 to 2001) and the occurrence of the buy-bust operation (in
2003). As against these sketchy claims, PO2 Laro testified that Alivio failed to recognize
him during the buy-bust operation.[20]
In any event, in Gwyn Quinicot v. People,[21] we held that it is not the existing familiarity
between the seller and the buyer, but the agreement and acts constituting the sale and
delivery of the illegal drugs, that is crucial in drug-related cases:
What matters in drug related cases is not the existing familiarity between the seller and
the buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the
dangerous drug. Besides, drug pushers, especially small quantity or retail pushers, sell
their prohibited wares to anyone who can pay for the same, be they strangers or not. It is
of common knowledge that pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle prohibited
drugs in the open like any article of commerce. Drug pushers do no confine their
nefarious trade to known customers and complete strangers are accommodated
provided they have the money to pay.[22] [Citations omitted]
In this case, the prosecutions evidence sufficiently established the exchange of the shabu
and the buy-bust money between the appellants and PO2 Laro.
The identity of the confiscated shabu
and/or drug paraphernalia
In ascertaining the identity of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia presented in
court as the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (a)
the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been
complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an
unbroken link (not perfect link) in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated
items.
Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 that prescribes the procedure to be observed by
the authorities in handling the illegal drug and/or drug paraphernalia confiscated
provides:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
This provision is elaborated on under Section 21(a) of the IRR which provides a saving
clause in case the prescribed procedure is not complied with. Under this saving clause,
non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items.
The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the
illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the accused
until the time they are presented in court. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines the chain of custody rule in the following
manner:
b. Chain of Custody" means the 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. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody [was] of the seized item, the date and time when
such transfer of custody made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition[.]
In this case, although the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No.
9165 was not strictly complied with, we find that the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team under the chain of
custody rule.
(a) The first link The records show that the shabu and the drug paraphernalia
were immediately marked at the scene by PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias before they
proceeded to the police station.[23] PO2 Laro marked the plastic sachet containing shabu
subject of the buy-bust sale, with AAO 05-20-03 that stood for the initials of Alivio and
the date of the buy-bust sale.[24] In turn, SPO3 Matias marked the retrieved shabu and
the drug paraphernalia with his signature.[25]
(b) The second link - The records also disclose that after the respective markings were
made, PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias turned over the confiscated items in their custody at
the police station for investigation. As may be gathered from the Request for Laboratory
Examination dated May 20, 2003 and prepared by SPO4 Danilo M. Tuao, the following
specimens were recovered from the appellants and submitted for laboratory
examination:
One (1) pc heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined amount of
white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu bought from suspect marked as EXH A
AAO 05-20-03;
One (1) pc heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing undetermined amount of
white crystalline substance marked as EXH B ECDV 05-20-03;
Two (2) pcs (sic) disposable lighter marked as EXH C1 to C2 AAA 05-20-03;
One (1) pc improvised burner marked as EXH D AAO 05-20-03;
One (1) pc improvised waterpipe/tooter marked as EXH E AAO 05-20-03.[26]
(c) The third link - PO1 Mapula testified that he was the one who delivered the
request for laboratory examination and the specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory.[27]
He also testified that he turned over the specimens to one PO1 Chuidan who received
them at 1:00 a.m. of May 21, 2003.[28] Upon receipt of the specimens, PO1 Chuidan
stamped the request with a Control No. 1700-03 and wrote D-940-03.[29] In this regard,
a facial examination of Chemistry Report No. D-940-03E shows that the very same
specimens bearing the same markings stated in the police request were subjected to
laboratory examination, completed at 3:15 a.m. of May 21, 2003.[30]
(d) The fourth link - The prosecution and the defense stipulated that the
specimens examined by the forensic chemist, contained in the request for laboratory
examination, were the ones presented in court. PO2 Laro and SPO3 Matias identified and
testified that the shabu and the drug paraphernalia examined were the items retrieved
from the appellants in the buy-bust operation conducted on May 20, 2003.[31]
Under the circumstances, the prosecutions evidence clearly established an unbroken link
in the chain of custody, thus removing any doubt or suspicion that the shabu and drug
paraphernalia had been altered, substituted or otherwise tampered with. The unbroken
link in the chain of custody also precluded the possibility that a person, not in the chain,
ever gained possession of the seized evidence.[32]
The defenses of Denial and Frame-up
The appellants merely denied the buy-bust sale and their possession of the shabu and
the drug paraphernalia. They claimed that they were framed by the police who took their
earnings and forcibly took them to the police station. In light of the positive and credible
testimony and the concrete evidence showing the existence of the buy-bust operation,
these defenses are unworthy of belief. Dela Vegas injuries alone cannot rebut the
consistent evidence that the appellants were arrested pursuant to a buy-bust operation.
We particularly note in this regard that the participating policemen denied that they
previously knew the appellants and that they entertained ulterior or illicit motives to
frame them.
The Proper Penalties

On the illegal sale of shabu (Criminal Case No. 12450-D), the appellants were caught and
arrested for selling .06 gram of shabu. The RTC and the CA correctly imposed the penalty
of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 against the appellants, in accordance with
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 which punishes illegal sale of shabu with the penalty
of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00).

On the illegal possession of shabu (Criminal Case No. 12451-D), dela Vega was caught in
possession of .10 gram of shabu and was meted the penalty of twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. Section
11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of
xxx methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Thus, we sustain the penalties the RTC and the CA imposed as these are within the range
provided by law.

Lastly, illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (Criminal Case No. 12452-D) is punished
under Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 that provides a penalty of imprisonment
ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years, and a fine ranging from Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00). We thus uphold the
penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine of
P10,000.00 that the RTC and the CA imposed on Alivio.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the decision, dated November 30, 2006,
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01138 which, in turn, affirmed the
decision, dated February 28, 2005, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Pasig City, in
Criminal Case Nos. 12450-52-D.

SO ORDERED.
 That on or about the 31st day of October, 2002, in the Municipality of Balagtas, Province
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 189278 of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
Plaintiff-Appellee, named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there
Present: willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession and control [a] dangerous
drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine
CORONA, C.J., Chairperson, hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 3.296 [grams].[2]
- versus - VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
DEL CASTILLO, and During her arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
PEREZ, JJ.
ELIZABETH MARCELINO y REYES, Promulgated: The defense agreed to the following stipulations[3] during the pre-trial:
Accused-Appellant. July 26, 2010

1) the qualification and competence of Forensic Analyst Amilyn Flores-Maclid as

an expert witness;

2) the existence of the request for laboratory examination signed by Police

Senior Inspector Arthur Felix Asis and received by the Bulacan Provincial Crime
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Laboratory on November 1, 2002; and

3) the existence of Chemistry Report No. D-628-02 signed by Forensic Analyst

DECISION Amilyn Flores-Maclid including the specimens examined by said Forensic Analyst
attached to the Chemistry Report contained in a brown envelope with marking D-628-02-
VELASCO, JR., J.: AFM consisting of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white
crystalline substance with markings and recorded net weights A(MDC-1)-0.494 gm. and
This is an appeal from the June 29, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. B(MDC-2)-3.296 gms., respectively.
CR-H.C. No. 03153 entitled People of the Philippines v. Elizabeth Marcelino y Reyes, which
affirmed the Decision in Criminal Case Nos. 3048-M-2002 and 3049-M-2002 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76 in Malolos City, Bulacan. The RTC found accused-
appellant Elizabeth Marcelino guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No.
(RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts Version of the Prosecution

Two Informations charged accused-appellant as follows: At the trial, the prosecution presented SPO1 Marciano Dela Cruz[4] as its sole witness.

Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002
That on or about the 31st day of October, 2002, in the Municipality of Balagtas, Province
of Bulacan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and
transport [a] dangerous drug consisting of one (1) [heat-sealed] transparent
plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.494 gram. [1]
SPO1 Dela Cruz, a police officer stationed at the Balagtas Police Station in Bulacan, was
part of a team that conducted a test-buy on October 30, 2002 to verify a report of
accused-appellant Elizabeth engaging in illegal drug activities.[5]
When the test-buy confirmed that Elizabeth was indeed selling illegal drugs, a team was
formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. SPO1 Dela Cruz was designated as poseur-
buyer. He placed his initials MDC on a five hundred peso bill to be used as boodle
money.[6]

Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002 On October 31, 2002, the buy-bust team headed for P. Castro St. Burol 1st, Balagtas,
Bulacan at around half past seven in the evening. SPO1 Dela Cruz and his asset went to
meet Elizabeth and asked to buy shabu worth five hundred pesos (PhP 500). Once
Elizabeth had handed the shabu to SPO1 Dela Cruz, he gave the pre-arranged signal,
prompting SPO3 Felix Dela Cruz to approach them. SPO3 Dela Cruz recovered the marked
PhP 500 bill and another sachet of suspected shabu from Elizabeth. She was then
apprised of her constitutional rights. SPO1 Dela Cruz subsequently marked the sachet
that was sold to him as MDC-1 and the sachet found on the person of Elizabeth as MDC-
2.[7]
A request was later submitted to the crime laboratory for a laboratory examination of the
seized substances.[8] Chemistry Report No. D-628-2002 confirmed that the subject drugs
were positive for shabu.[9]
Version of the Defense
The defense offered the testimonies of Elizabeth and tricycle driver Rodrigo Lavia, a
neighbor.
In her defense, Elizabeth claimed that on October 31, 2002, she was at her home at P.
Castro St., Burol 1st, Balagtas, Batangas with her grandson and her sister, Consuelo Reyes,
when they suddenly heard a knock at the door. When Consuelo answered the door, three
men suddenly entered the house and announced that they were police officers. [10]
Elizabeth recalled that the police officers who arrested her at her home were not the
same ones that the prosecution presented as members of the buy-bust operation. She
also claimed that when she got to the police station, a woman named Mila Trias told
her, Ngayon nakikilala mo na kung sinong kinalaban mo. According to Elizabeth, she had
a quarrel with Mila because she suspected Mila was having an affair with her husband. [11]
To corroborate Elizabeths story, Lavia testified that on October 31, 2002, at about 7:35 in
the evening, he was parked outside the house of Elizabeth. He was waiting for passengers
when, suddenly, two owner-type jeeps arrived carrying two passengers each. The
passengers were all male and dressed in civilian clothes. All headed towards Elizabeths
house. Elizabeth opened the door and the men entered the house, with the door closing
behind them. From the outside, Lavia heard Elizabeth shouting as to why the men were
searching her house. He approached the house and heard commotion inside. He heard
sounds of objects falling. Later, he saw the men coming out of the house and boarding
Elizabeth into one of their vehicles.[12]
The Ruling of the Trial Court
On January 21, 2008, the RTC found Elizabeth guilty of the crimes charged based on what
it found to be the credible testimony of SPO1 Dela Cruz. In Criminal Case No. 3048-M-
2002 (illegal sale of drugs), the trial court found that all the elements of the crime were
established by the prosecution with moral certainty. In Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002
(illegal possession of dangerous drugs), the trial court ruled that the search conducted on
Elizabeth was valid under the rule on search incidental to a lawful arrest.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision[13] reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, accused ELIZABETH
MARCELINO y REYES is hereby CONVICTED:
[A] in Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002, which charges accused with sale of [a] dangerous
drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.494 gram and a dangerous drug, in
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and is SENTENCED to suffer LIFE
IMPRISONMENT, and to pay the FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00);
[B] in Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002 which charges accused for possession and control
of dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, weighing 3.296 grams
and a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and is SENTENCED
to suffer the imprisonment of, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, TWELVE (12)
YEARS AND ONE DAY, AS THE MINIMUM TERM, TO THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, AS THE
MAXIMUM TERM, and to pay the FINE of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) x
x x.
The Ruling of the Appellate Court
Dissatisfied with the RTCs Decision, Elizabeth appealed to the CA, arguing that the
evidence presented against her was inadmissible, since it was acquired during her
unlawful arrest. She likewise insisted that her guilt was not proved beyond reasonable
doubt.
The CA in its Decision[14] affirmed the appealed RTC Decision. The appellate court ruled
that Elizabeth was estopped from questioning the legality of her arrest, as it was being
raised for the first time on appeal. It held that even the police officers had minor lapses in
complying with Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, there was still no doubt that
the shabu presented during the trial was the same substance retrieved from her.
Aggrieved, Elizabeth filed a Notice of Appeal from the CA Decision.
On December 2, 2009, this Court notified the parties that they may submit their
supplemental briefs. The People, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
manifested that it was dispensing with the filing of a Supplemental Brief.
The Issues
I
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT A SEARCH WARRANT WAS
NOT NECESSARY
II
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY
OF THE SHABU WAS PRESERVED
The Ruling of this Court
Accused-appellant Elizabeth reiterates that two test-buys were conducted before the
actual buy-bust operation was launched. She thus contends that after the two test-buys,
the police officers certainly had sufficient time to secure both a search warrant and a
warrant of arrest but failed to do so. She argues that a buy-bust operation should never
be used as a cover for an illegal warrantless search and arrest.
She also imputes grave doubts on whether SPO1 Dela Cruz observed the requirements of
RA 9165 on inventory and photographing of the illegal substance, arguing that said police
officer did not state where and when he marked the sachets of shabu.
The OSG, on the other hand, argues that no search warrant and warrant of arrest were
needed, a buy-bust operation being recognized as a valid form of entrapment. Citing
jurisprudence, the OSG claims that it is ridiculous for the buy-bust team to first obtain a
search warrant when a crime is committed before their eyes.
As to the other contention of Elizabeth, the OSG refutes this by saying that the identity of
the seized substance was adequately established by the prosecution, as this was properly
marked and its paper trail ascertained, from the request for laboratory examination to
the physical science report on the illegal substance and the actual presentation in court.
We affirm Elizabeths conviction.
The appellate court correctly ruled that Elizabeth cannot question her arrest for the first
time on appeal. And even if we were to allow her to raise such issue, her appeal must still
fail.
Search warrant and warrant of arrest not needed
In People v. Villamin,[15] involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs during a buy-
bust operation, the Court ruled that it was a circumstance where a warrantless arrest is
justified under Rule 113, Sec. 5(a) of the Rules of Court.[16] The same ruling applies to the
instant case. When carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, it
is a judicially sanctioned method of apprehending those involved in illegal drug activities.
It is a valid form of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from the police
officers but from the accused himself. The accused is caught in the act and must be
apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a
warrant does not make the arrest illegal.[17]
The illegal drug seized was not the fruit of the poisonous tree as the defense would like
this Court to believe. The seizure made by the buy-bust team falls under a search
incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule 126, Sec. 13 of the Rules of Court, which
pertinently provides:
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which
may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a
search warrant.
Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the search was
also valid, and a warrant was likewise not needed to conduct it.
Chain of custody
The prosecutions failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory and
photograph of the evidence confiscated will not result in accused-appellants acquittal of
the crimes charged. Non-compliance with the provisions of RA 9165 on the custody and
disposition of dangerous drugs is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions case. Neither
will it render the arrest of an accused illegal nor the items seized from her
inadmissible.[18]
We discussed in People v. Pagkalinawan[19] both what the law provides and the level of
compliance it requires:
Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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 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. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
As can be gleaned from the language of Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules, it is clear that
the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with it is not fatal. It does not render
appellants arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible. What is
essential is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items,
as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
Here, the chain of custody was established through the following links: (1) SPO1 Dela
Cruz marked the seized sachet with MDC-1 for the sachet that was the subject of the buy-
bust, and MDC-2 for the sachet found on accused-appellants person; (2) a request for
laboratory examination of the seized items MDC-1 and MDC-2 was signed by Police
Senior Inspector Arthur Felix Asis; (3) the request and the marked items seized were
received by the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry Report No. D-628-02
confirmed that the marked items seized from accused-appellant were shabu; and (5) the
marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits C-1 and C-2.
As there is no proof to support the claim that the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized shabu have been compromised at some stage, we find no reason to overturn
the finding of the trial court that what were seized from Elizabeth were the same illegal
drugs presented in the trial court. As it is, there was substantial compliance with the
requirements under RA 9165, and the prosecution adequately established that there was
an unbroken chain of custody over the shabu seized from Elizabeth.
Also working against Elizabeths cause is the presumption of regularity accorded those
involved in the buy-bust operation. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of
the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police
officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
unless there is evidence to the contrary.[20] Accused-appellant failed to overcome this
presumption by showing clear and convincing evidence that the police officers did not
properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive. [21]
Penalty Imposed
Criminal Case No. 3048-M-2002 (illegal sale of drugs)
The penalty for sale of illegal drugs under RA 9165 is the following:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
Criminal Case No. 3049-M-2002
RA 9165 penalizes possession of dangerous drugs as follows:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death
and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity
thereof:
xxxx
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; otherwise, if the
quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as
follows:
xxxx
3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine
ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of
opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana
resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, or other dangerous drugs such as,
but not limited to, MDMA or ecstasy, PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed
or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or
if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three
hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
Finding the sentence handed by the lower court in both criminal cases to be within the
range provided under RA 9165, we affirm accused-appellant Elizabeths sentence for both
charges.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 03153 finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of Secs. 5 and 11 of Article II,
RA 9165 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 199938 January 28, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
CAMALOUING SAMANODING, LARA y BRION, Appellant.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
This is an appeal from the April 7, 2011 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 02479 which affirmed in toto the August 29, 2006 Decision2 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 231, convicting appellant Camaloding Laba y
Samanoding (appellant) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 91653
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
₱500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs.
The Facts
On July 18, 2005, at around 10:45 in the morning, appellant arrived at the Manila
Domestic Airport in Pasay City to take his flight bound for Davao City. When he
approached the initial check-in area, Mark Anthony Villocillo (Villocillo), a non-uniformed
personnel (NUP)4 frisker assigned thereat,5 physically searched the person of appellant
and suspected that the latter’s oversized white rubber shoes, with the identifying mark
"Spicer,"6 seemed to contain what felt like rice.7 Upon inspection of the rubber shoes,
which Villocillo asked appellant to remove,8 the former discovered three (3) plastic
sachets containing shabu– two plastic sachets were inside the left shoe while one was
inside the right shoe.9
When Villocillo extracted the plastic sachets from appellant’s shoes, the latter told
Villocillo, "Baka pwedeng pag-usapan ito" while simultaneously handing him a rolled wad
of paper bills.10 Eventually, Villocillo called the attention of his supervisor, SPO2 Nolasco
Peji11 (SPO2 Peji), who apprehended appellant and apprised him of his rights.12
Subsequently, appellant was brought to their office and investigated by PO2 Edwin
Caimoso,13 who thereafter indorsed appellant, together with the confiscated plastic
sachets, to Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agents who had eventually
arrived at the scene.14
On the same day, the PDEA, through Police Inspector Peter P. Alvarez, requested15 that a
laboratory examination on the three (3) plastic sachets be conducted, which were
accordingly marked as follows:
(a) EXH-A MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05 and signatures – 98.81 grams
(b) EXH-B MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05 and signatures – 96.65 grams
(c) EXH-C MTV ECC NSP 18/06/05 and signatures – 1.17 grams16
The following day, or on June 19, 2005, upon qualitative examination by forensic chemist
Police Senior Inspector Stella Garciano Ebuen (Police Senior Inspector Ebuen) on the
confiscated sachets, which contained a total of 196.63 grams of white crystalline
substance, the same tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.17
Consequently, appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 in an
Information18 which reads:
That on or about the 18th day of June 2005, in Pasay City, Metro-Manila, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a
departing passenger via Cebu Pacific Airlines flight no. 5J-965 239 bound for Davao,
without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
transport 196.63 grams of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride (SHABU), a dangerous
drugs, by concealing it inside his worn colored white rubber shoes with marking "SPICER."
Contrary to law.
When arraigned on June 27, 2005 with the assistance of counsel, appellant entered a
plea of not guilty to the offense charged.19
In defense, appellant claimed that on the date and time in question, he was at the Manila
Domestic Airport20 for his flight to Davao City. After passing through the metal detector
and while walking towards the ticketing counter to check-in, a police officer, whom he
later identified as SPO2 Peji,21 called his attention and asked him to stay for a while22
because something was allegedly recovered from him. At the same time, appellant
noticed that someone had been arrested, and he heard SPO2 Peji tell that person to
settle the case so that they could just "pass" the "thing" to appellant, which turned out to
be shabu.23
Thereafter, SPO2 Peji and Villocillo brought appellant to an office24 where SPO2 Peji
forced him toadmit ownership of the shabu.25 When appellant refused, SPO2 Peji
suggested the settlement of the case for ₱100,000.00, an amount which appellant could
not afford.26 Later, he was brought to a PDEA office where PDEA agents took his
statement and once again asked him to admit ownership of the confiscated shabu.27
Appellant averred that SPO2 Peji confiscated his wallet which contained ₱1,600.00 in
cash, as well as ₱2,000.00 found in the pocket of his pants.28 Finally, appellant denied
wearing the white rubber shoes with the label "Spicer" at the time he was arrested.29
Ruling of the RTC
On August 29, 2006, after trial on the merits, the RTC convicted30 appellant as charged
upon a finding that all the elements for transportation of drugs, i.e., actual physical
possession and control of the prohibited drugs, coupled with the presentation of the
corpus delicti in court,31 have been established by the prosecution. It found the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses Villocillo and SPO2 Peji to be candid, forthright and
reliable. Moreover, as law enforcers, they were presumed to have regularly performed
their official duties.
On the other hand, the RTC refused to give credence to appellant’s bare and
unsubstantiated denials, as well as his claim that he was merely framed-up, and his
insistence that the police officers were extorting money from him. The fallo of the
judgment of conviction reads: WHEREFORE, on the evidence adduced and the facts and
conclusions drawn therefrom, the accused CAMALODING LABA y SAMANODING is hereby
found Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and PAY A FINE OF FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00) WITHOUT SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT IN
CASE OF INSOLVENCY, AND COSTS.
SO ORDERED.32
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed33 the RTC Decision in toto, holding that the identity of the
seized substance had been adequately proved and that the chain of custody was properly
established, from the time that it was recovered from the person of the appellant, tested
at the laboratory for a qualitative examination, and its actual presentation in court. While
the CA conceded that the arresting officers were unable to strictly comply with the
requirements set forth under Sec. 21,Par. (1) of RA 9165 by failing to photograph the
seized items, it nonetheless found that the evidentiary value of the confiscated substance
had been preserved. It also did not find the non-presentation of the forensic chemist as
fatal to the cause of the prosecution.
Issue Before The Court
The core issue to be resolved by the Court is whether the CA and the RTC committed any
reversible error in convicting appellant as charged.
The Court’s Ruling
Appellant was convicted of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, which reads:
Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. ―The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any such transactions. (Emphasis supplied)
In adjudging appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the said offense, the RTC, as
affirmed by the CA, considered the fact that he was caught in flagrante delicto in
possession of an extremely large amount of prohibited drugs inside the airport, before
boarding his flight bound for Davao City. The RTC explained34 that Sec. 5, Art. II of RA
9165 penalizes the act of transporting shabu, under which provision appellant must
clearly be convicted.
The Court sustains appellant’s conviction.
"Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean "to carry or
convey from one place to another."35 The essential element of the charge is the
movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another.36
In this case, appellant was apprehended inside the airport, as he was intending to board
his flight bound for Davao City with a substantial amount or 196.63 grams of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in his possession, concealed in separate
plastic bags inside his oversized Spicer rubber shoes. While it may be argued that
appellant was yet to board the aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal drugs in his
possession, it cannot be denied that his presence at the airport at that particular instance
was for the purpose of transporting or moving the dangerous drugs from one place to
another.
Moreover, it may be reasonably inferred from the deliberations of the Congress that if a
person is found to have more than five (5) grams of shabu in his possession, then his
purpose in carrying them is to dispose, traffic, or sell it, as follows:
REPRESENTATIVE AQUINO (B.). We agree with the premises, Mr. Speaker.1âwphi1 But
just for the sake of our education, in terms of volume, somebody informed this
Representation that one gram of shabu would probably be the same size as a single
kernel of corn. Would that be correct?
REPRESENTATIVE CUENCO. The technical committee that has been assisting us in
carpentering this bill tells us that a habitual user of, let’s say, shabu, one of the dangerous
substances provided for here, a habitual user of shabu, even if we say daily taker of
shabu consumes only 1/5 of a gram, .02 grams a day. So that means, if he has with him
one gram of shabu, that is good for five days; if he has five grams, that is good for 25
days. Now if he is a user, he won’t need more than five grams to carry with him or her. So
the presumption of the law is that, if he carries with him or her more than five grams,
that is not for his personal consumption. He is out to traffic the rest of it.37
(Underscoring supplied)
With respect to the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs, the Court likewise finds no
reason to disturb the findings of the CA that the same had been faithfully observed by
the arresting officers: from the time that the illegal substance was seized from appellant
and properly marked by the arresting officers, to its laboratory examination until its
presentation in open court for identification purposes.38 Considering that the integrity of
the seized substance has been duly preserved, failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21, Par.
(a)39 of RA 9165 requiring the apprehending officers to physically inventory and
photograph the confiscated items shall not render the evidence inadmissible.10
Neither will the non-presentation in court of Police Senior Inspector Ebuen, the forensic
chemist who conducted the laboratory examination on the confiscated substance,
operate to acquit appellant. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution
is not for the court to decide. It has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has
the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.41 Besides, corpus delicti has
nothing to do with the testimony of the chemical analyst, and the report of an official
forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of
regularity in its preparation.42 Corollarily, under Sec. 4443 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of
Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie
evidence of the facts they state. WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the April 7, 2011
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR-HC No. 02479.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
MICHAEL SAN JUAN y CRUZ, G.R. No. 177191
When arraigned on February 17, 2004, the three accused entered separate pleas of not
Petitioner, Present:
guilty to the offense charged.[7] During the pre-trial, the three accused did not enter into
any stipulation or admission of facts with the prosecution.[8] Thereafter, trial on the
CARPIO, J.,
merits ensued. In the course of the trial, two varying versions arose.
- versus - Chairperson,
NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ.
Version of the Prosecution
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Promulgated:
Respondent. May 30, 2011
On December 15, 2003, at about 10:00 a.m., elements of the Intelligence Unit of the
Pasay City Police, namely: Police Inspector Grant Golod (P/Insp. Golod), Police Officer
(PO)3 Zoilo Manalo (PO3 Manalo), and PO2 Roberto Jovenir (PO2 Jovenir), together with
Senior Police Officer (SPO)2 Sorio Aure (SPO2 Aure), PO2 Froilan Dayawon (PO2
Dayawon), PO2 Carlito Bintulan, and PO1 Angel dela Cruz, who were all in civilian attire,
conducted surveillance, monitoring, and intelligence gathering to arrest violators of the
law along Senator Gil Puyat (formerly Buendia) Avenue in Pasay City due to numerous
reports of rampant snatching, robbery, and holdup in the area. P/Insp. Golod and PO3
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Manalo boarded a vehicle driven by PO2 Jovenir, while SPO2 Aure and the rest of the
officers occupied another.[9]

DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before this Court is a Petition[1] for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision [2] dated
December 21, 2006, which affirmed the decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pasay City, dated July 8, 2004, finding petitioner Michael San Juan y Cruz (petitioner),
together with Rolando Pineda y Robledo (Pineda), Cynthia Coderes y Habla (Coderes),
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, [4] Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165.[5]
The Facts
Petitioner, together with Pineda and Coderes (accused), was charged with the crime of
Transporting Illegal Drugs in an Information[6] dated December 16, 2003, which reads:
That on or about the 15th day of December 2003, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring
and confederating together and mutually helping one another, without authority of law,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously transport a total of 978.7 grams of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) a dangerous drug[s].
Contrary to law.
While cruising along Senator Gil Puyat Avenue, the police officers noticed a blue Toyota
Corolla 4-door sedan car (car), which had no license plate at its rear, parked in front of a
liquor store. Thus, P/Insp. Golod called the other group using his cellphone, and informed
them that they should check the said car.[10]
SPO2 Aure and PO2 Dayawon approached the driver side of the car, whereas PO3
Manalo and PO2 Jovenir approached the passenger side thereof. SPO2 Aure knocked on
the cars window. When the driver, later identified as petitioner, opened the cars
windows, SPO2 Aure asked for the Official Receipt (OR) and the Certificate of Registration
(CR) of the car but none was produced. SPO2 Aure was about to accost petitioner, when
a commotion ensued at the passenger side[11] of the car because PO2 Jovenir noticed that
the passenger, later identified as Pineda, was trying to hide a plastic bag under his seat,
the contents of which accidentally came out (lumawit). PO2 Jovenir opened the door,
held Pineda's right hand and asked him, Ano yan? The contents were discovered to be
plastic containers containing white crystalline substance which the police officers
suspected to be shabu[12] so much so that PO2 Jovenir uttered, Pare, may dala to, shabu,
positive.[13] At this juncture, Pineda said, Sir, baka pwede nating ayusin ito.[14]
SPO2 Aure instructed petitioner to alight. When he was frisked, SPO2 Aure recovered two
small plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. SPO2 Aure turned over these
sachets to PO2 Jovenir. At the back seat of the car was another passenger who was later
identified as Coderes. Upon questioning, Coderes replied that the owner of the shabu
was a certain Mike who was waiting for the accused at her condominium unit at Unit
1225, 12th Floor of the Cityland Condominium on Dela Rosa Street, Makati City (Cityland
Condominium).[15]

Immediately thereafter, the police officers, with the accused, went to Cityland
Condominium for a follow-up operation. Upon arrival, P/Insp. Golod coordinated with
the Security Officer of the said condominium, while SPO2 Aure, PO3 Manalo, and PO2
Jovenir were led by Coderes to Unit 1225. SPO2 Aure, PO3 Manalo, PO2 Jovenir allowed
Coderes to walk ahead of them. Upon reaching Unit 1225, Coderes pretended to knock
on the door but the police officers did not notice that she had a key with her. Coderes
immediately opened the door, went inside the unit and locked herself in. The police
officers forcibly opened the door by kicking it and rearrested Coderes. They then
searched the unit for Mike, but they discovered that Coderes was the only one inside.
From Cityland Condominium, the police officers brought all the accused to the Pasay City
Police Headquarters for investigation.[16]
Subsequently, upon examination, the two plastic containers and the two plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance were positively identified as shabu. [17] The
supposed testimony of Engineer Richard Allan B. Mangalip, Forensic Chemical Officer,
before the RTC, was the subject of stipulation by the parties.[18]
Version of the Defense
Pineda and Coderes denied that they were arrested while on board the car and that they
possessed the illegal drugs. They claimed that, on December 15, 2003, between 9:00 and
10:00 a.m., they were inside Unit 1225 and were preparing to go out shopping; that
somebody knocked on the door; and Pineda asked who that person was, but there was
no reply; that the door was forcibly opened and armed men gained entry and ordered
them to lie down on the bed face down; that the men searched the unit and took their
personal belongings and money; that they later recognized the said armed men as Pasay
City police officers; that they presented no warrant of arrest and/or search warrant; that
they were brought to separate rooms in Sinta Court Motel (Sinta Motel) at the corner of
F.B. Harrison and EDSA Extension in Pasay City; that the police officers demanded money
from them in the amount of P500,000.00 in exchange for their release; and that they
were brought to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Pasay City Police
Headquarters at around 7:00 or 8:00 p.m.[19] On that day, Coderes only saw petitioner at
the CID.[20]
On June 2, 2004, petitioner testified that he knew Pineda because he is the godfather of
one of Pinedas children; that he also knew Coderes because she is the live-in partner of
Pineda; that around 10:00 a.m. on December 15, 2003, he was at the lobby of the
Cityland Condominium and was waiting for an elevator in order to see Pineda and
Coderes; that upon riding the elevator, three (3) male persons joined him who were all in
civilian attire and whom he later came to know to be Pasay City police officers, namely:
PO2 Jovenir and P/Insp. Golod and another one whom he failed to identify; that one of
them pressed the number four (4) button of the elevator; and that at the time, petitioner
was calling Pineda through his cellular phone, but, there was no signal. [21]
Petitioner also related that P/Insp. Golod suddenly held petitioner's hand which was
holding the cellular phone, and PO2 Jovenir punched him in the stomach and was told to
peacefully go with them so that he would not be hurt; that they did not introduce
themselves to him; that the elevator opened on the fourth floor, and the person who
pressed the number four (4) button went out and the elevator went down; that when the
elevator reached the ground floor, P/Insp. Golod pulled him towards the lobby, while
PO2 Jovenir remained by the door of the elevator; that there was another man who held
him and he was pulled out of the Cityland Condominium; that he was brought to a
parked white car, handcuffed at his back, and made to board the backseat of the said
white car with his face down, and thereafter the car left; that he did not know what kind
of car it was because he was ordered to bow down and not to look out, and they were
always holding his head; that he was with P/Insp. Golod and the other policemen inside
the white car; that he was brought to Sinta Motel; that he was brought inside a room,
and frisked, and the police officers took from him his watch, his wallet and the money
inside his wallet, the car key, and the parking ticket; that he was asked if he knew Pineda
and Coderes to which he assented; that when he was asked who was the owner of the
car key, he said that the car did not belong to him as it was just being offered for sale;
that in going to the Cityland Condominium, he used the car; that when he was brought
out of the Cityland Condominium, the car was left at the parking area of the Cityland
Condominium; that, as a car sales agent, he made sure that the OR, CR, and plate number
of the car were complete; that the car had a rear plate number; that P/Insp. Golod
demanded that petitioner pay P200,000.00 in exchange for his release; that he stayed at
the Sinta Motel for five (5) hours before he was brought to the CID; that he stayed at the
CID for two (2) hours and he was made to sit on a chair; that after two (2) hours he was
brought inside a room of the same building where he stayed until the following day; that
on the following day, the accused were brought to Fort Bonifacio for drug testing; and
that they were brought back to the CID and, in the afternoon, petitioner was brought to
the Pasay City Jail. While inside the CID, petitioner saw the car parked at the back of
the Pasay City Hall.[22]
The RTC's Ruling
The RTC gave greater weight to the evidence presented by the prosecution, and found
the testimonies of the arresting officers more credible and worthy of belief. Thus, in its
decision dated July 8, 2004, the RTC convicted petitioner, Pineda, and Coderes of the
crime charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises and considerations, this Court hereby
renders judgment finding the three accused Rolando Pineda y Robledo, Cynthia
Coderes y Habla and Michael San Juan y Cruz all GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and they are hereby sentenced
to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php 500,000.00 each, plus
costs.
The 978.7 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) involved in this case is
hereby declared forfeited in favor of the Government and ordered to be turned-over to
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its appropriate disposition in accordance
with the provisions of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Law.
SO ORDERED.[23]
Aggrieved, the accused, through their respective counsels, appealed their case. [24]
The CA's Ruling
On December 21, 2006, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA opined that the
inconsistencies pointed out by the defense were unimportant matters which do not delve
into the material elements of the crime. The CA also relied on the presumption that the
aforementioned police officers regularly performed their official functions. Thus, the CA
disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 8, 2004 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 116 of Pasay City convicting accused-appellants Rolando R. Pineda, Cynthia
H. Coderes and Michael C. San Juan of violation of Section 5, Rule II of Republic Act No.
9165 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in Criminal Case No. 03-2804CFM is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[25]
Undaunted, petitioner alone filed a Motion for Reconsideration [26] which the CA,
however, denied in its Resolution[27] dated March 21, 2007.
Of the three accused, only petitioner sought recourse with this Court through this
Petition based on the following grounds:
1. THE HONORABLE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
ADMITTING AND CONSIDERING THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE DESPITE THE GLARING
VIOLATIONS OF PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND R.A. 9165 MAKING SUCH
EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE.
2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF CONVICTION OF THE TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE ADMITTED
CONFLICTING AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF ALL THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES
WHICH CLEARLY PUTS THE CONVICTION IN DOUBT.
3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT DESPITE THE LATTER'S CLEAR VIOLATION
OF ESTABLISHED PROCEDURAL RULES AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ON DUE PROCESS
BY NOT ALLOWING PETITIONER TO PRESENT A MATERIAL WITNESS.[28]
Petitioner avers that the police officers initially apprehended the accused for a mere
traffic violation; hence, there was no justifiable reason for them to search the car in the
absence of any search warrant and/or the fact that the accused were not caught
in flagrante delicto. The police officers also failed to appraise the accused of their rights.
Petitioner points out that the follow-up operation conducted in Unit 1225 was unlawful
as the police officers were not armed with any search warrant, and they simply relied on
the alleged information given by Coderes. In view of the numerous, conflicting, and
material inconsistencies in the respective testimonies of PO2 Jovenir, SPO2 Aure and
P/Insp. Golod, petitioner submits that such would lend credence to the unanimous claim
of all the accused that they were arrested in Cityland Condominium in Makati City and
not on board the car parked in Pasay City. Moreover, petitioner, invoking R.A. No. 9165,
asseverates that the police officers did not follow the procedure prescribed by law. He
questions the identity of the illegal drugs alleged to have been seized from the accused
and those presented before the RTC because instead of proceeding immediately to the
Pasay City Police Headquarters, the police officers went to the Cityland Condominium,
making planting of evidence highly probable.[29] The police officers also failed to make
any inventory of the alleged prohibited drugs in clear violation of the law.[30]
On the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), argues that only questions of law may be entertained by this
Court. The issue of whether petitioner was apprehended in the act of violating R.A. No.
9165 is factual in nature. The OSG claims that petitioner was lawfully caught in flagrante
delicto, thus, any evidence seized from him may be used against him. Citing the CA's
ruling, the OSG avers that the police officers were clear, positive, and categorical in their
testimonies against the accused. Lastly, the OSG invokes the rule that findings of fact of
the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded not only respect, but also finality
by this Court.[31]
Our Ruling
The instant Petition is impressed with merit.
It is the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case that the appeal throws the whole
case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite, and
appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned.[32] We find the Petition meritorious on the basis of such review.
Petitioner was charged with and convicted of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165. Said provision of law reads, as follows:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
― The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous
drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or shall act as a broker in any such transactions.[33]
Petitioner was charged specifically with the transport of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu. However, upon review of the facts of the case, no such transport
was proven to have taken place.
The RTC found that petitioner and accused were seen in a parked Toyota Corolla car,
which had no rear license plate, by a team from the Pasay City Police Force. When the
police approached the driver and asked for the vehicles papers, none were presented,
prompting the police to ask the vehicles occupants to disembark for verification
purposes. The driver, petitioner, did so, while the man on the passenger side, Pineda,
was seen attempting to hide a paper bag under his seat. The paper bag dropped on the
floor, partially revealing its contents, namely, one of two plastic containers with a white
crystalline substance inside. This prompted the police to search petitioner as well, and
they recovered two small plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance from
him. An examination of the substance by the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory
revealed the contents to be positive for shabu.
From the foregoing facts, it is clear that a conviction for transportation of dangerous
drugs cannot stand.
Transport as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean: to carry or convey
from one place to another.[34] The essential element of the charge is the movement of
the dangerous drug from one place to another. In the present case, although petitioner
and his co-accused were arrested inside a car, the car was not in transit when they were
accosted. From the facts found by the RTC, that car was parked and stationary. The
prosecution failed to show that any distance was travelled by petitioner with the drugs in
his possession. The conclusion that petitioner transported the drugs merely because he
was in a motor vehicle when he was accosted with the drugs has no basis and is mere
speculation.The rule is clear that the guilt of the accused must be proved with moral
certainty. All doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused. It is the responsibility of
the prosecution to prove the element of transport of dangerous drugs, namely, that
transportation had taken place, or that the accused had moved the drugs some distance.
Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of the trial court are given great respect. But
when there is a misappreciation of facts as to compel a contrary conclusion, the Court
will not hesitate to reverse the factual findings of the trial court. In such a case, the scales
of justice must tilt in favor of an accused, considering that he stands to lose his liberty by
virtue of his conviction. The Court must be satisfied that the factual findings and
conclusions of the trial court leading to an accuseds conviction has satisfied the standard
of proof beyond reasonable doubt.[35]
Having charged that petitioner acted in conspiracy with Pineda and Coderes, it was
incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that all the accused had come to an agreement
concerning the transport of shabu and had decided to execute the agreement. [36]
In this regard, our ruling in Bahilidad v. People[37] is instructive:
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the
physical acts constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence,
for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, all taken together, however, the evidence must be strong
enough to show the community of criminal design. For conspiracy to exist, it is essential
that there must be a conscious design to commit an offense. Conspiracy is the product of
intentionality on the part of the cohorts.
It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or
indirect contribution to the execution of the crime committed. The overt act may consist
of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of
moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime
or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators. Hence, the mere
presence of an accused at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it, without any
active participation in the same, is not enough for purposes of conviction. [38]
In this case, the prosecution, other than its bare assertions that petitioner and accused
conspired in transporting the shabu, failed to establish that there was indeed a conscious
criminal design existing between and among petitioner and accused to commit the said
offense. True, petitioner was in the drivers seat of the parked car on that fateful day of
December 15, 2003, but it could not be deduced that he was even aware that Pineda had
with him two plastic containers containing shabu, nor did he accord any form of
assistance to Pineda. According to PO2 Jovenir, these plastic containers were placed
inside a bag and Pineda tried to conceal these under his seat. [39] These facts, standing
alone, cannot give rise to a presumption of conspiracy. Certainly, conspiracy must be
proven through clear and convincing evidence. Indeed, it is possible that petitioner was
telling the truth when he said that he merely met with accused in order to offer the car
for sale, as that was his part-time business.[40]
It bears stressing that conspiracy requires the same degree of proof required to establish
the crime proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, mere presence at the scene of the crime
at the time of its commission without proof of cooperation or agreement to cooperate is
not enough to constitute one a party to a conspiracy.[41] In fine, the prosecution failed to
discharge its burden to prove and establish conspiracy. Necessarily, petitioner should be
held accountable only for his alleged respective participation in the commission of the
offense.[42]
However, we find that the prosecution also failed to adequately prove petitioners
participation in the offense charged with moral certainty.
Crucial are the following facts. SPO2 Aure allegedly found the two sachets in the
possession of petitioner.[43] However, it should be noted that SPO2 Aure did not mark the
sachets himself. Instead, he turned over these sachets to PO2 Jovenir.[44]
Thus, on Direct Examination, PO2 Jovenir testified:
PROSECUTOR PUTI:
Q - Contained in this bag are also two (2) small transparent plastic sachets with granules
and with markings RJ-4 and RJ-5 and the date. These two (2), why is it that the same are
included in that bag?
A - SPO2 Aure confiscated those two (2) small transparent plastic sachets from the
possession of [petitioner], sir.
Q - The driver?
A - Yes, sir.
Q - How do you know that these are the two (2) plastic sachets that were confiscated
by SPO2 Aure from [petitioner]?
A - Sir, I also put markings RJ-4 and RJ-5 on those plastic sachets.
Q - Why do you say that these were the two (2) plastic sachets that were confiscated by
SPO2 Aure from the driver [petitioner]? SO ORDERED.
A - Because SPO2 Aure handed to me those plastic sachets and according to him, he
confiscated those two (2) plastic sachets in front of [petitioner], sir.
PROSECUTOR PUTI:
Q - When was the handing made?
A - Right at the scene, sir.[45]

The answers elicited from PO2 Jovenir raise numerous questions and ultimately cast
doubts on the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the two sachets containing
illegal drugs allegedly seized from petitioner. The prosecution, in its quest to establish its
claim that these two sachets were actually recovered from petitioner, even had to
propound similar questions to PO2 Jovenir twice only to reveal that the latter merely
relied on SPO2 Aures claim. PO2 Jovenir did not actually witness that SPO2 Aure seized
these two sachets from petitioner. Neither was it established that the two sachets were
actually marked in the presence of petitioner by SPO2 Aure himself.

Apropos is our ruling in People v. Coreche:[46]

Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related
items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the
starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are
immediately marked because succeeding handlers 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 criminal proceedings, obviating
switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the
authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the
authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duties, the doctrinal fallback of every drug-related
prosecution. Thus, in People v. Laxa and People v. Casimiro,we held that the failure to
mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the
prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. These rulings are
refinements of our holdings in People v. Mapa and People v. Dismuke that doubts on the
authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by the prosecution's failure to prove that
the evidence submitted for chemical analysis is the same as the one seized from the
accused suffice to warrant acquittal on reasonable doubt. [47]

WHEREFORE, the Court MODIFIES the Decision dated December 21, 2006 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00180, and ACQUITS petitioner Michael San Juan y Cruz on
reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is
confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of
Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau
of Corrections is DIRECTED to report the action he has taken to this Court within five days
from receipt of this Decision.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 188976 At the trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: PO2 Richard Noble (PO2
Plaintiff-Appellee, Noble) and PO1 Melvin Mendoza (PO1 Mendoza). The defense offered the testimonies of
Present: accused-appellants and Norhaya Mapan Le, Mapan Les daughter.
- versus -
CORONA, C.J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR., Version of the Prosecution
JAKAR MAPAN LE y SUBA and LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
RODEL DEL CASTILLO y SACRUZ, DEL CASTILLO, and
Accused-Appellants. PEREZ, JJ. According to PO2 Noble, the Pasig City Police Station received information at around 9:00
on the evening of July 27, 2004 from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain Ankar
Promulgated: and Rodel were selling shabu in Bolante, Palatiw in Pasig City. He noticed that the two
men tagged in the information were included in their drug watch list. Their office thus
June 29, 2010 prepared a pre-operation report (Exhibit B) and coordinated with the Philippine Drug
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x Enforcement Agency (PDEA) (Exhibit B-1). Police Inspector Castillo organized a buy-
operation and designated PO2 Noble as the poseur-buyer. PO2 Noble placed his initials
DECISION RN on the buy-bust money (Exhibits E and F) consisting of two (2) Php100 bills. PO2
Noble, PO1 Mendoza and their colleagues then headed for the target area in two (2)
unmarked vehicles. They reached the place at around 9:50pm and walked to the place of
VELASCO, JR., J.: Ankar and Rodel. Once the latter were spotted, the CI talked to Ankar and introduced
PO2 Noble as a regular shabu buyer. When Ankar asked PO2 Noble how much he wanted
to purchase, he replied by giving Ankar the Php200 marked money. Ankar then instructed
This is an appeal from the March 31, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR- Rodel to give PO2 Noble a plastic sachet. PO2 Noble examined the contents of the plastic
H.C. No. 03019 entitled People of the Philippines v. Jakar Mapan Le y Suba alias Ankaw bag and proceeded to scratch his head to mark the consummation of the drug
and Rodel Del Castillo y Sacruz alias Rodel which affirmed the Decision of the Regional transaction. Upon seeing the pre-arranged signal from PO2 Noble, back-up operative PO2
Trial Court (RTC) Branch 154 in Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 13644-D for Violation of Mendoza rushed to the scene. PO2 Noble arrested Rodel while PO2 Mendoza arrested
Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of Republic Act (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Ankar, who attempted to flee. PO2 Mendoza retrieved the buy-bust money from Ankar
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accused-appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment. while PO2 Noble marked the plastic sachet received from Rodel.[2]

The Facts
An Information charged accused-appellants as follows:
On or about July 27, 2004, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the accused, conspiring and confederating together, and both of them mutually
helping and aiding one another, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to PO1 Richard N. Noble, a
police poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing two (2)
grams of white crystalline substance, which were found positive to the test for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law. [1]
PO1 Melvin Mendoza corroborated PO2 Nobles testimony. He testified that he followed
PO2 Noble and the CI at a distance of around 10 to 15 meters. He observed the men
talking with Ankar, with Rodel handing something to Ankar afterwards. Ankar then
handed the object to PO2 Noble. PO2 Mendoza did not see what the object was from
where he was situated. When he saw PO2 Noble brush his hair with his hand he joined
PO2 Noble in arresting Rodel and Ankar, with PO2 Noble informing the men of their
violation. PO2 Noble then placed markings on the plastic sachet that was sold. The men
were then brought to the police station for further investigation. [3] The two were
subsequently identified as Jakar Ankar Mapan Le (Le) and Rodel Del Castillo (Del Castillo).
Version of the Defense

On the witness stand, Le testified that he was a vendor of slippers and socks at the Pasig
Market. On the evening of July 27, 2004, he was inside his house with his family. While
During their arraignment, accused-appellants both gave a negative plea. they were watching television someone suddenly kicked the door of their house. Four
male strangers then entered without warning and frisked him. They found nothing on his
person. He asked if they had a warrant and they answered that they did not. Still they
brought him outside and boarded him in a red car. He was told that they were taking him
to their office.[4]
According to Le, Del Castillo[5] lived five houses away from him. He only knew Del Castillo
by face and only found out his name when he arrived at the Parancillo Police Station,
where Del Castillo was in handcuffs. Le recounted that a police officer named Noble
demanded PhP 10,000 from Mapan for his freedom. Le answered that he did not have
money, to which Noble said, tutuluyan kita. Le was jailed when he could not comply with
Nobles demand.
Del Castillo testified that on the night of the buy-bust operation, he was on his way home
from work as a kargador in the market. He stopped by a deep-well pump in front of Les
house in order to wash his hands. Several police officers approached him while he was
washing his hands. He was asked if he knew who Ankar was. He replied in the negative.
Afterwards, he noticed that three of the police officers went inside Les house while the
rest remained outside. He left soon after. After taking only a few steps, PO2 Noble called
Del Castillo back and asked him if he knew Le. He replied that he did not. He was boarded
in a car, with Le following suit three minutes later. The two were brought
to Rizal MedicalCenter where they were made to sign a document. They were not
brought to the crime laboratory for drug testing but were instead escorted to the
Parancillo police station.[6]
Del Castillo narrated that the police insisted he knew who Le was. He denied this and was
brought to a bathroom where he was beaten up.[7]
Norhaya Mapan Le (Norhaya) corroborated her fathers testimony. She said she was
watching television with her parents when four men barged into their house on July 27,
2007 at around 10 to 11pm. They were armed men in civilian clothing who announced
that they were police officers. They instructed her family not to move. The men searched
their house and did not find anything. She saw them frisk her father and handcuff him.
Later, their neighbors told them that the police officers were from Parancillo and that
they should follow her father to the police station. [8]
At the police station, Norhaya and her family begged Police Officer Noble to set her
father free because he was innocent. The policeman instructed them to pay
Php10,000.00 for the release of Le. When they told Noble they could not produce the
amount, they were advised to return when they had the payment.[9]
In addition, Norhaya testified that she did not know her fathers co-accused Rodel Del
Castillo prior to the alleged buy-bust operation. She told the court that her father left
their house on July 27, 2004 to sell slippers and socks at the market and returned home
before 8pm and did not leave their house anymore.[10]
The Ruling of the Trial Court
Finding all of the elements of a valid buy-bust operation present, the RTC convicted
accused-appellants of the crime charged. The trial court also noted that the requirements
prescribed by RA 9165 on coordination with PDEA were complied with. The defenses
claim of extortion was not given credence as it was found to be a vain attempt by
accused-appellants to show motive on the part of the police officers even if the former
had no visible means of income.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision[11] reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in finding the accused
JAKAR MAPAN LE and RODEL DEL CASTILLO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation
of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (sale of dangerous drugs) and each of them is sentenced
to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. Each of them is also ordered to pay a fine
of P1,000,000.00. x x x
SO ORDERED.
Accused-appellants appealed their conviction before the CA. They averred that their guilt
was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. There were material inconsistencies and
contradictions in the prosecution witnesses testimonies, such as PO2 Noble and PO1
Mendozas version of how the buy-bust operation was conducted. The defense also
emphasized that the prosecution failed to (1) present the person who delivered the
subject shabu to the crime laboratory, thus creating a missing link in the chain of custody;
and (2) make an inventory and take photographs of the confiscated shabu in the
presence of accused-appellants, a media representative, and an elected public official as
required by RA 9165.
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA[12] affirmed the appealed RTC decision. The alleged inconsistent statements made
by prosecution witnesses were not material enough to overturn the trial courts findings
and did not delve into the elements of the crime charged. As to the chain of custody rule,
the appellate court ruled that what was most important was that the prosecution
showed that the identity and integrity of the shabu was preserved.
Accused-appellants seasonably filed their Notice of Appeal of the appellate courts
Decision.
On, September 23, 2009, this Court required the parties to submit supplemental briefs, if
they so desire. The parties manifested that they were adopting their arguments
contained in their respective briefs earlier filed with the Court.

The Issue
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Reiterating their arguments, accused-appellants maintain that the prosecution witnesses
testimonies on how the buy-bust operation occurred were completely different from
each other. The non-presentation of the marked money the team used is also
questioned. The prosecutions evidence is likewise attacked for having a missing link in
the chain of custody of over the subject shabu and for non-compliance with Sec. 21 of RA
9165 as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The defense further argues
that no justifiable reason was offered for such non-compliance.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on the other hand, argues on behalf of the
People that the prosecution was able to prove the identity of the seized shabu. They label
as immaterial whether it was Le or Castillo who gave the shabu to PO2 Noble. In their
view, the non-presentation of the marked money does not create a hiatus in the
evidence of the prosecution as the sale of the shabu was adequately proven and
the shabu itself was presented before the court. In addition, they point out that the
photocopies of the marked money were presented, identified, and not objected to.
On the matter of extortion, the OSG contends that no proof was shown by the defense to
overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties enjoyed by
the buy-bust operation teams members.
The Ruling of This Court
We affirm accused-appellants conviction.
Elements of the Crime
Accused-appellants are charged with violating Section 5 of RA 9165, which reads:
Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of
life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person,
who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away
to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any
and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act
as a broker in any of such transactions.
The essential elements that must be established in prosecuting a case of illegal sale
of shabu are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. [13] What is
material is proof that the transaction actually took place, along with the presentation in
court of the illegal substance which constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime.[14]
In the instant case, the aforementioned elements were established by the prosecution.
Le received Php200 from poseur-buyer PO2 Noble in exchange for a plastic sachet
handed to him by Del Castillo. PO2 Noble wrote his initials on the seized item. The plastic
sachets contents were then subjected to a laboratory examination and tested positive
for shabu.The alleged inconsistencies cited by the defense do not materially affect the
credibility of the prosecutions witnesses. As the OSG correctly pointed out, the
inconsistencies were too trivial to merit consideration. What is important is that the
elements of the crime were established by both the oral and object evidence presented
in court.
Accused-appellants argument on the failure to present the marked money in court is not
only without merit but baseless. Two (2) One hundred peso (Php100) bills were
presented as evidence as the buy-bust money used and marked as Exhibits E and F.
Moreover, the presentation of buy-bust money is not required by law or jurisprudence.
Its non-presentation is not fatal to the case for the prosecution. The marked money used
in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable but merely corroborative in nature. [15]
Chain of Custody
We likewise affirm the findings of both lower courts on the issue of chain of custody.
What is important is the preservation of the identity and integrity of the seized shabu.
RA 9165 provides the procedure for buy-bust operations:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take
charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to
the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done
under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24)
hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours,
conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and
through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the
destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public
official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and
destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those
item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or
recycled for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly
weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or
burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the
custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In
all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as
determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to
personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute
an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a
representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within
seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in
question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office
to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative
sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the Board
of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the court for leave to turn
over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition and destruction
within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same; xxx
To summarize, we ruled in People v. Camad,[16] that there are links that must be
established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, viz: first, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover
and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
In the instant case, the links in the chain are the following:
(1) At the scene of the buy-bust operation, Castillo handed the plastic sachet to PO2
Noble, who immediately marked it with his initials;
(2) The plastic sachet was brought to the laboratory for examination per Request for
Laboratory Examination (Exhibit A) signed by Police Inspector Earl B. Castillo;
(3) According to Physical Science Report No. D-0670-04E (Exhibit B) prepared by Forensic
Chemist Lourdeliza Gural Cejes, the two (2) grams inside the seized sachet tested positive
for shabu.
Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[17] The requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR
are not inflexible. What is essential is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination
of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[18] The prosecution in this case was able to
preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the shabu seized from accused-
appellants. The records show that there was substantial compliance with the
requirements of RA 9165. We thus hold that the chain of custody requirements were met
in the instant case.
Presumption of Regularity
Likewise undeserving of credence is the allegation of frame-up. Accused-appellants did
not present any evidence of extortion on the part of the buy-bust team. Neither were
they able to show any effort in correcting a wrong supposedly committed against them
by filing the appropriate administrative and criminal charges against the police officers
who arrested them. Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of
the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly
performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and
credit.[19] We therefore uphold the presumption that the members of the buy bust team
performed their duties in a regular manner. Their testimonies as prosecution witnesses
are entitled to full faith and credit.
Penalty Imposed
RA 9165 prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from PhP
500,000 to PhP 10 million for a violation of Sec. 5 of the same law. Having been
sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of PhP 1 million each, accused-
appellants imposed penalties should be affirmed as these are within the range provided
by law.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the CAs March 31, 2009 Decision in CA-
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03019 is AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
- versus -
NENITA LEGASPI y LUCAS,
Accused-Appellant.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Challenged in this appeal is the January 16, 2006 Decision[1] promulgated by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01209, which affirmed in toto the Judgment[2] of
conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 rendered by the
Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 164, in Criminal Case No. 12351-D.
On April 23, 2003, accused-appellant Nenita Legaspi y Lucas (Legaspi), also known as Nita,
was charged before the RTC for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
The Prosecution, through the undersigned Public Prosecutor, charges Nenita Legaspi y
Lucas a.k.a. Nita with the crime of violation of Section 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165,
committed as follows:
On or about April 22, 2003, in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized to sell, possess or otherwise use any
dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and
give away to Police Officer Arturo San Andres, a police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance weighing sixteen (16)
decigrams (0.16 grams), which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine
G.R. No. 173485 hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of said law.[3]
Present:
Upon arraignment[4] on July 14, 2003, Legaspi pleaded not guilty to the charge against
CORONA, C.J., her. After the pre-trial conference[5] held on the same day, trial on the merits ensued.
Chairperson,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, The prosecution evidence, upon which the RTC anchored its finding of guilt, consisted of
BERSAMIN, the testimonies of two of the operatives involved in the buy-bust operation, Police
DEL CASTILLO, and Officer (PO) 2 Arturo San Andres and PO1 Janet A. Sabo.[6] Their version of the incident
VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. leading to Legaspis arrest is summarized as follows:
Promulgated: San Andres and Sabo were assigned to the Mayor Special Action Team (MSAT), Pasig City
Police Station. On April 22, 2003, at around 4:00 p.m., a certain informant, whose identity
November 23, 2011 remained confidential, approached San Andres to report about the rampant incidence of
drug abuse at Centennial Village, Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City and about the drug pusher
who was identified as Legaspi. After gathering all the necessary details, San Andres
immediately informed his superior, Police Inspector Villaruel, who instructed him, Sabo,
PO1 Aldrin Mariano, and PO1 Roland Panis to conduct a buy-bust operation. Villaruel
designated San Andres to act as the poseur-buyer and gave him two pieces of one
hundred-peso (₱100.00) bills to be used as buy-bust money. Mariano was tasked to be
the team leader, and he, along with the rest of the team, served as San Andress
backup. At around 5:15 p.m., the team reached Centennial Village, where after a briefing
on their operations, San Andres, together with the informant, proceeded to Legaspis
house, while the others strategically placed themselves in the entrapment area, keeping
San Andres within their view. Upon seeing Legaspi, who was just outside her house, the
informant introduced San Andres to her as a scorer.[7] Legaspi asked them how much they
wanted to score, to which San Andres replied ₱200.00 panggamit lang.[8] After San
Andres gave Legaspi the buy-bust money, which he had previously marked with his
initials ABS, Legaspi reached into her pocket and gave him one heat-sealed plastic sachet
containing the suspected shabu. As soon as San Andres got the sachet, he scratched his
head, to signal to his team that the transaction was over. He thereafter introduced
himself as a police officer, informed Legaspi of her rights, and marked the sachet he had
received from her with his initials. The team then brought Legaspi to Rizal Medical Center
for a check-up, and then to the police station wherein they filed the appropriate charges
against her. Meanwhile, San Andres sent the sachet to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory and requested for an examination to determine the nature of its
contents.[9]
Annalee R. Forro, a PNP forensic chemist at the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory,
examined the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings EXH A ABS 04/22/03
containing 0.16 gram white crystalline substance[10] on the same day. In her Chemistry
Report No. D-727-03E, she stated the following:
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result
to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
xxxx
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A contains Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[11]
This report, along with the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance bought from
Legaspi, and the two ₱100.00 bills used as marked money,[12] were presented in court.
After the prosecution had rested its case, Legaspi was called to the witness stand to relay
her version of the events. Legaspi primarily denied the charges against her. She testified
that on April 22, 2003, while she was inside her house taking care of her grandson, San
Andres and Mariano peeked through her window and asked her if she was Nita.Legaspi
alleged that after she answered in the affirmative, the two police officers pushed the
door open and told her to go with them. She claimed that because of the shock the
events had caused her, she was not able to ask the police officers why they were taking
her with them. Legaspi said that she was brought to the police precinct in Pasig City
where she was asked about her shabu source. Legaspi averred that she told the police
officers that she did not know what they were talking about. She asseverated that she
had never been arrested before and that she had never been involved in any illegal drugs
case.[13]
On December 12, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, the court finds accused NENITA LEGASPI Y LUCAS a.k.a. Nita GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and hereby imposes
upon her the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos
(₱500,000.00), with the accessory penalties provided under Section 35 thereof.
Moreover, the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.16 gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu (Exhibit E-1) is hereby confiscated in favor of
the government and turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for
destruction in accordance with law.
With Costs.[14]
In convicting Legaspi, the RTC stated that it was more convinced with the version of the
prosecution. The RTC held that the positive testimonies of the two police officers were
stronger than Legaspis negative testimony. The RTC added that aside from the
presumption that the two police officers performed their duties in a regular manner,
there was no showing that they had any ill motive in arresting Legaspi.
Aggrieved, Legaspi appealed[15] her case to this Court. However, conformably with this
Courts Decision in People v. Mateo,[16] which modified certain rules on direct appeals
from the RTC to the Supreme Court in cases where the penalty imposed is
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, Legaspis case was transferred to the
Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.[17]
Legaspi anchored her appeal on the lone error as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE
CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE POLICE INSTIGATED THE ALLEGED BUY-
BUST TRANSACTION.[18]
On January 16, 2005, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision, affirming the RTCs
judgment of conviction, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated December 12, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
City, Branch 164 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation
of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED en toto.[19]
In its Decision, the Court of Appeals explained the difference between instigation, which
is deemed contrary to public policy, and entrapment, a valid means of arresting violators
of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It then held that the buy-bust operation that led to Legaspis
arrest was an entrapment, and that Legaspi miserably failed to substantiate her
allegation of instigation, which must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. The
Court of Appeals also said that contrary to Legaspis assertions, neither prior surveillance
nor the presentation of the informant in court was an indispensable requirement to the
successful prosecution of a drug case.[20]
Undaunted, Legaspi is once again before this Court, assigning the same error she
assigned before the Court of Appeals.[21]
The Ruling of this Court
Legaspi was charged and convicted for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, more
popularly known as shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or
the Dangerous Drugs Law, which provides:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
- The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,
deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous
drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity
involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty
(20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) to Five
hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another,
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled precursor and essential
chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation
of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires
within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be
imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners,
couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous
drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals trade, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a
dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any
offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death of a victim thereof, the
maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person
who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed
in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment
and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a
"protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
Defense of Instigation
Legaspi contends that she was instigated to commit the crime, as she was not the one
who sought out San Andres to sell him shabu. She avers that San Andress own testimony
clearly shows that he had suggested the commission of the crime by offering her ₱200.00
for the purchase of shabu. Legaspi claims that this is supported by her testimony wherein
she denied selling shabu to San Andres or to anyone for that matter. This, she says, is
confirmed by the fact that she has no police or criminal record.[22]
Taking a cue from the Court of Appeals, we shall first distinguish between entrapment
and instigation. Entrapment is sanctioned by the law as a legitimate method of
apprehending criminals. Its purpose is to trap and capture lawbreakers in the execution
of their criminal plan. Instigation, on the other hand, involves the inducement of the
would-be accused into the commission of the offense. In such a case, the instigators
become co-principals themselves.[23]
Where the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigating person and the
accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him,
there is instigation and no conviction may be had. Where, however, the criminal intent
originates in the mind of the accused and the criminal offense is completed, even after a
person acted as a decoy for the state, or public officials furnished the accused an
opportunity for the commission of the offense, or the accused was aided in the
commission of the crime in order to secure the evidence necessary to prosecute him,
there is no instigation and the accused must be convicted. The law in fact tolerates the
use of decoys and other artifices to catch a criminal.[24]
The distinction between entrapment and instigation has proven to be very relevant in
anti-narcotics operations. It has become common practice for law enforcement officers
and agents to engage in buy-bust operations and other entrapment procedures in
apprehending drug offenders.[25] This Court, elaborating on the concept of a buy-bust
operation within the context of entrapment and instigation, has said:
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as
a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly
employed by police officers as an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act
of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates
from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. Its
opposite is instigation or inducement, wherein the police or its agent lures the accused
into committing the offense in order to prosecute him. Instigation is deemed contrary to
public policy and considered an absolutory cause. x x x.[26]
Instigation is recognized as a valid defense that can be raised by an accused. To use this
as a defense, however, the accused must prove with sufficient evidence that the
government induced him to commit the offense.[27] Legaspi claims that she was induced
into committing the crime as charged, as she was the one approached by San Andres,
who was then looking to buy shabu.
We find, however, that Legaspis defense of instigation must fail. It is an established rule
that when an accused is charged with the sale of illicit drugs, the following defenses
cannot be set up:
(1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way; or
(2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer
seeking to expose his criminal act; or
(3) that police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently
assisted in its commission. [28]

The foregoing are especially true in that class of cases where the offense is the kind that
is habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of
conduct. Mere deception by the police officer will not shield the perpetrator, if the
offense was committed by him free from the influence or the instigation of the police
officer.[29]
In the case at bar, the police officers, after receiving a report of drug trafficking from
their confidential informant, immediately set-up a buy-bust operation to test the veracity
of the report and to arrest the malefactor if the report proved to be true. The
prosecution evidence positively showed that Legaspi agreed to sell ₱200.00 worth
of shabu to San Andres, who was then posing as a buyer. Legaspi was never forced,
coerced, or induced to source the prohibited drug for San Andres. In fact, San Andres did
not even have to ask her if she could sell him shabu. Legaspi was merely informed that he
was also a scorer; and as soon as she learned that he was looking to buy, she immediately
asked him how much he needed. Under the circumstances, the police officers were not
only authorized but were under an obligation to arrest Legaspi even without an arrest
warrant as the crime was committed in their presence.[30]
The RTC was correct in upholding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in
applying the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by the police officers,
especially since Legaspi failed to impute on them any motive to falsely testify against
her.[31] Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust
operation team were inspired by improper motive or did not properly perform their duty,
their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. [32]
Furthermore, when Legaspi testified in court, her defense was one of denial and not
instigation. While instigation is a positive defense, it partakes of the nature of a
confession and avoidance.[33] In instigation, the crime is actually performed by the
accused, except that the intent originates from the mind of the inducer. [34] Thus, it is
incompatible with the defense of denial, where the theory is that the accused did not
commit the offense at all. Instigation and denial, therefore, cannot be present
concurrently. Besides, this Court has consistently held that:
[B]are denials are weak forms of defenses, especially in this case where the accused-
appellants testimony was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The
uncorroborated denial by the accused-appellant cannot prevail over the testimonies of
the arresting officer and the poseur-buyer, who both testified on affirmative matters.
Furthermore, there is no indication that the arresting team and the other prosecution
witnesses were actuated by improper motives, prevaricating just to cause damnation to
him. Thus, their affirmative statements proving accused-appellants culpability must be
respected and must perforce prevail.[35]
No Prior Surveillance
Legaspi also argues that the veracity of the buy-bust operation is suspect as it was
conducted without prior surveillance.[36]
This Court has many times discussed the dispensability of prior surveillance in buy-bust
operations, as it is not a pre-requisite for the validity of an entrapment or such buy-bust
operation. In People v. Eugenio,[37] we held that the conduct of surveillance prior to a
buy-bust operation is not required especially when the police officers are accompanied
to the scene by their civilian informant. This is so because there is no rigid or textbook
method in conducting buy-bust operations. Flexibility is a trait of good police work, and
the need for prior surveillance may be dispensed with when time is of the
essence.[38] In People v. Gonzales,[39] we said:
The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means
to apprehend drug dealers. Thus, we have refused to establish on a priori basis what
detailed acts the police authorities might credibly undertake in their entrapment
operations.[40]
Non-presentation of Informant
Legaspi further contends that the failure to present the informant as a witness in court is
very material and relevant in the case at bar, inasmuch as she had denied having
sold shabu to anyone. She also claims that since the identity of the informant was known
to her from the beginning, there was no reason for the prosecution to not present him in
court as a witness, especially since he is in the best position to establish that she had
indeed been engaged in the sale of shabu prior to the buy-bust operation against her.[41]
We do not agree. The presentation of an informant is not a requisite for the successful
prosecution of drug cases. Informants are almost always never presented in court
because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. [42] In People v. Ho
Chua,[43] we held:
[P]olice authorities rarely, if ever, remove the cloak of confidentiality with which they
surround their poseur-buyers and informers since their usefulness will be over the
moment they are presented in court. Moreover, drug dealers do not look kindly upon
squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as much as permitted, their
identities are kept secret. In any event, the testimony of the informant would be merely
corroborative.[44]
Legaspi argues that it was the civilian informant who reported on her alleged drug-
pushing; hence, only he had personal knowledge of such activities, subject of this
case. Contrary to Legaspis claims, the subject matter of this case is her sale of shabu to
San Andres on April 22, 2003. She was not charged and convicted for her activities prior
to such sale. Since San Andres, who was the poseur-buyer himself, already testified to the
events, which he had personal knowledge of, the testimony of the informant would be
merely corroborative, and can thus be dispensed with. [45]
Only two elements are to be proven for the prosecution of illegal sale of regulated or
prohibited drugs:

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and

(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

The prosecution had presented evidence that established both elements by the
required quantum of proof, i.e., guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[46]

Legaspi was positively identified by the prosecutions eyewitnesses as the person who
sold to the poseur-buyer a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline
substance. Her identity as the culprit cannot be doubted, having been caught in flagrante
delicto in an entrapment operation conducted by the MSAT of Pasig City. Such positive
identification prevails over Legaspis uncorroborated and weak defense of denial, and
unsubstantiated and contradictory defense of instigation.[47]

The prosecution also succeeded in establishing with certainty and conclusiveness

the corpus delicti of the crime. After Legaspi received the ₱200.00 from San Andres, the
poseur-buyer, she reached into her pocket and handed him one heat-sealed plastic
sachet containing shabu. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the
receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust
transaction between the entrapping officers and Legaspi.[48]

As the prosecution ably established Legaspis guilt beyond reasonable doubt, both the
RTC and the Court of Appeals did not err in convicting her for violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the January 16, 2006
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01209.

SO ORDERED.

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice