People v.

Chi Chan Liu

GR No. 189272 Jan. 21,2015

Facts: Dec. 3, 1998- SPO2 Lazaro

Paglicawan and SPO3 Isagani Yuzon received a radio message from Barangay Captain of
Ambil Island,Looc, Oriental Mindoro saying that there is a suspicious looking boat
somewhere w/in the vicinity of the island and they responded by heading towards the
location and spotted 2 boats anchored side by side, one of which resembled a fishing boat
and the other, a speedboat.
2. They noticed one (1) person onboard the fishing boat and two (2) onboard the speed
boat who were transferring cargo from the former to the latter. As they
moved closer to the area, the fishing boat hurriedly sped away but due to the strong waves
the officers were only able to reach the speedboat, w/c had some engine problems, and
found Respondents with 45 transparent plastic bags(weighing 1kilo each) containing a
white, crystalline substance which they later found out and tested to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride (Shabu). In the course of the arrest, the officers asked the respondents for
their identification papers but respondents failed to do so. The officers directed respondents
to transfer to their service boat and thereafter towed respondent’s speed boat to the shore
behind the Municipal Hall of Looc, Occidental, Mindoro. Respondents repeatedly offered
them “big, big amount of money” which they ignored.
3. Since the respondents do not know how to speak in English the officers had to get an
interpreter to tell them (respondents) of their Miranda rights.
-An information was filed against the respondents for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act.
The respondents plead not guilty.
4. Trial Court found respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the CA affirmed in
toto the decision of the Trial Court.
Petitioner/Respondents’ contention:
-They had witnesses which said that the bags of shabu was not recovered from the speed
boat but rather from the house of the Barangay captain.
-They allege a violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and
seizures. Due to the absence of probable cause, their warrantless arrest and consequent
search and seizure on their persons and possession is unjustified and hence, the
confiscated bags of regulated drugs therefrom are inadmissible against them.

Issue: Whether there was a violation of respondents’ constitutionjal right on unreasonable

search and if the warrantless arrest and search and seizure of their persons and possession
was unjustified so as to make the confiscated bags inadmissible as evidence against them?

Held: NO. In this case, appellants were actually committing a crime and were caught by
the apprehending officers in flagrante delicto. As previously stated, the records reveal that
on the date of their arrest, the apprehending officers, while acting upon a report from the
Barangay Captain, spotted appellants transferring cargo from one boat to another.
However, one of the boats hastily sped away when they drew closer to the appellants,
naturally arousing the suspicion of the officers. Soon after, the police officers found them
with the illegal drugs plainly exposed to the view of the officers. When they requested
appellants to show proper documentation as to their identity as well as their purpose for
being there, appellants refused to show them anything much less respond to any of their
questions. In fact, when the officers were transporting appellants and the illegal drugs to the
shore, the appellant Chi Chan Liu even repeatedly offered the arresting officers “big, big
amount of money.” Hence, the circumstances prior to and surrounding the arrest of
appellants clearly show that they were arrested when they were actually committing a
crime within the view of the arresting officers, who had reasonable ground to believe that a
crime was being committed.
-In addition, this Court does not find the consequent warrantless search and seizure
conducted on appellants unreasonable in view of the fact that the bags containing the
regulated drugs were in plain view of the arresting officers, one of the judicially recognized
exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a search warrant.

Summary:
-Arrest was valid because it was done in flagrante delicto which falls under Sec5 rule 113
-Search and seizure of plastic bags containing shabu was valid due to the plain view
doctrine.
 De Lima v. Guerrero

G.R. No. 229781 October 10, 2017

Facts: The Senate and the House of Representatives conducted several inquiries on the
proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting
inmates who executed affidavits in support of their testimonies. These legislative
inquiries led to the filing of 4 complaints with the Department of Justice. The DOJ Panel
conducted a preliminary hearing on December 2, 2016, wherein the petitioner, through
her counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion to Immediately Endorse the Cases to the Office of
the Ombudsman and for the Inhibition of the Panel of Prosecutors and the Secretary of
Justice ("Omnibus Motion"). In the main, the petitioner argued that the Office of the
Ombudsman has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear the four complaints
against her. Further, alleging evident partiality on the part of the DOJ Panel, the
petitioner contended that the DOJ prosecutors should inhibit themselves and refer the
complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman. 3 information were filed against De Lima.
One of the Informationswas docketed as Criminal Case No. 17-16518 and raffled off to
Branch 204, presided by respondent judge. This Information charging petitioner for
violation of Section 5 in relation to Section (jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28 of Republic
Act No. (RA) 9165. Alleging that :
“Then DOJ Sec. De Lima and Ragos, with the use of their power, position, and authority,
demand, solicit and extort money from the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison
to support the senatorial bid of De Lima in the May 2016 election; by reason of which,
the inmates, not being lawfully authorized by law and through the use of mobile phones
and other electronic devices, did then and there willfully and unlawfully trade and
traffic dangerous drugs, and thereafter give and deliver to De Lima, through Ragos and
Dayan, the proceeds of illegal drug trading amounting to Five Million (₱5,000,000.00)
Pesos on 24 November 2012, Five Million (₱5,000,000.00) Pesos on 15 December 2012,
and One Hundred Thousand (₱100,000.00) Pesos weekly "tara" each from the high
profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison.”

On February 20, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, mainly raising the following:
the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged against petitioner; the DOJ Panel
lacks authority to file the Information; the Information charges more than one offense;
the allegations and the recitals of facts do not allege the corpus delicti of the charge;
the Information is based on testimonies of witnesses who are not qualified to be
discharged as state witnesses; and the testimonies of these witnesses are hearsay.

Issue: 1) Whether the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction
over the violation of Republic Act No. 9165 averred in the assailed Information.
2) Whether or not the pendency of the Motion to Quash the Information before the trial
court renders the instant petition premature.
3) Whether respondent judge abused its discretion in finding probable cause in
ordering the arrest of De Lima.

Held: 1) The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to
the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27
or higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to
office. The power of the Sandiganbayan to sit in judgment of high-ranking government
officials is not omnipotent. The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is circumscribed by law and
its limits are currently defined and prescribed by RA 10660,97 which amended
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1606.98 As it now stands, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the following:

SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in

all cases involving:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII,
Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials
occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting
or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

xxxx

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade '27' and higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed
by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in
relation to their office.

c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos.
1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to
the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the government or bribery
arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not
exceeding One Million pesos (₱l,000,000.00).

The foregoing immediately betrays that the Sandiganbayan primarily sits as a special
anti-graft court pursuant to a specific injunction in the 1973 Constitution.99 Its
characterization and continuation as such was expressly given a constitutional fiat
under Section 4, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which states:
SECTION 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to
function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

It should occasion no surprise, therefore, that the Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction

to hear drug-related cases. Even Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660,
touted by the petitioner and the dissents as a catchall provision, does not operate to
strip the R TCs of its exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165. As pointed
out by Justices Tijam and Martires, a perusal of the drugs law will reveal that public
officials were never considered excluded from its scope. Hence, Section 27 of RA 9165
punishes government officials found to have benefited from the trafficking of
dangerous drugs, while Section 28 of the law imposes the maximum penalty on such
government officials and employees.

In this case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court with the jurisdiction to "exclusively try
and hear cases involving violations of [RA 9165)." This is an exception, couched in the
special law on dangerous drugs, to the general rule under Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as
amended by RA 10660. It is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails
over a general law and the latter is to be considered as an exception to the general

2) THE PRESENT PETITION IS PREMATURE

Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and prohibiting respondent judge from
conducting further proceedings until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with
finality; Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the parties to the status prior to the
issuance of the Order and Warrant of Arrest, both dated
February 23, 201 7, thereby recalling both processes and restoring petitioner to her
liberty and freedom
In the palpable absence of a ruling on the Motion to Quash -- which puts the jurisdiction
of the lower court in issue -- there is no controversy for this Court to resolve; there is
simply no final judgment or order of the lower court to review, revise, reverse, modify, or
affirm. As per the block letter provision of the Constitution, this Court cannot exercise its
jurisdiction in a vacuum nor issue a definitive ruling on mere suppositions.

3) Notably, for purposes of determining the propriety of the issuance of a warrant of

arrest, the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of the
guilt of the accused.129 She is given wide latitude of discretion in the determination of
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest.130 A finding of probable cause
to order the accused's arrest does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction.131 It is enough that it is believed that the act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.132

Again, per the February 23, 2017 Order, respondent judge evaluated all the evidence
presented during the preliminary investigation and on the basis thereof found probable
cause to issue the warrant of arrest against the petitioner. This is not surprising given that
the only evidence available on record are those provided by the complainants and
the petitioner, in fact, did not present any counter-affidavit or evidence to controvert
this. Thus, there is nothing to disprove the following preliminary findings of the DOJ
prosecutors relative to the allegations in the Information filed in Criminal Case No. 17-
165:
Thus, from November 2012 to March 2013, De Lima[,] Ragos and Dayan should be
indicted for violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 3Gj), Section 26(b) and Section
28, of R.A. 9165, owing to the delivery of PS million in two (2) occasions, on 24 November
2012 and 15 December 2012, to Dayan and De Lima. The monies came inmate Peter
Co [were] proceeds from illicit drug trade, which were given to support the senatorial
bid of De Lima.

Also in the same period, Dayan demanded from Ragos money to support the senatorial
bid of De Lima. Ragos demanded and received ₱100,000 tara from each of the high-
profile inmates in exchange for privileges, including their illicit drug trade. Ablen
collected the money for Ragos who, in turn, delivered them to Dayan at De Lima's
residence.
 People v. Dasigan
GR No. 206229, Feb 04, 2015

Facts: On December 5, 2006, at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) office,
Melvin Jones Grandstand, Harrison Road, Baguio City, a male confidential informant
reported to Police Chief Inspector Luisito Meris that a certain alias "Amy" is engaged in
delivering Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "Shabu" within the vicinity
of the La Trinidad Trading Post at Km. 5, La Trinidad, Benguet. Those present at the
office were PO2 Arieltino Corpuz, SPO2 Cabily Agbayani and SPO1 Bernardo Ventura
and they all heard this piece of information. PCI Meris relayed the information to the
PDEA Regional Director, Col. Inmodias and the latter formed a team tasked to conduct
the operation against alias "Amy" and cause her eventual arrest. PCI Meris was
designated Team Leader and PO2 Corpuz, SPO2 Agbayani and SPO1 Ventura were
tasked as arresting officers. On December 8, 2006, PO2 Corpuz called "Amy" and asked
her regarding their transaction as he was willing to buy "shabu" worth two thousand
pesos (PHP 2,000.00). "Amy" said she will deliver the shabu the following day, December
9, 2006 at 6:00 o'clock in the morning at the vicinity of the La Trinidad Trading Post. On
Dec. 9 around 4:30 Amy arrived and he was arrested after bringing with her a class A
Shabu and asking P2000 from the police poseur buyer.

PO2 Corpuz then got the sealed sachets and he turned over all the six sachets, the two
sachets sold to him and the four sachets which "Amy" brought out from her pocket, as
well as the cell phone to the team leader PCI Meris. PCI Meris then held on to the items
as they went to the La Trinidad Police Station. PCI Meris brought out the seized items
and directed his team members to put their initials on said items. When asked why the
initials were not indicated on the plastic sachets at the time of the arrest, PCI Meris
explained that Bayabas, La Trinidad, Benguet, is a notorious place based on his
personal knowledge as he grew up in La Trinidad, Benguet as well as based on statistics
of the PNP of La Trinidad, Benguet. Being a notorious place and fearing that the
accused may have some back-up, he deemed it best that the marking be done in
their office and so they left the place right after the arrest of the accused.

The accused Amy Dasigan now avers that the police failed to follow the chain of
custody rule as provided by paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA9165, when the
failed to mark on the spot the sachets of shabu thus compromising the integrity of the
corpus delicti, which is the drugs.

Issue: Whether the police substantially complied with the chain of custody rule.

Held: Yes. This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should
ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, "as it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain." The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the
physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R.
A. No. 9165, will not render the accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from him
inadmissible.[22]
The chain of custody is not established solely by compliance with the prescribed
physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the
enumerated persons. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. A. No. 9165 on the
handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs states:

x x x 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.

As to the fact that the seized items were marked only at the police station and not
during the actual apprehension and seizure, in People v. Loks, we held that the marking
of the seized substance immediately upon arrival at the police station qualified as a
compliance with the marking requirement. Such can also be said here, especially in
view of the explanation of PCI Meris that the place of arrest had a notorious reputation
based on his personal knowledge as well as on police statistics, and that the arresting
officers deemed it best that they leave said place right after the arrest of the accused-
appellant for fear that the latter might have some back-up.

Clearly, there was no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and
examination of the shabu. The shabu that was seized from accused-appellant, taken to
the PDEA Office and thereat duly marked, then taken to the crime laboratory and
subjected to a qualitative examination, and thereafter introduced in evidence against
accused-appellant was the same shabu confiscated from accused-appellant when
she was caught in flagrante delicto possessing the same.
 People v. Maongco
G.R. No. 196966 Oct. 23, 2013

Facts: Based on a tip from a confidential informant, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs of the
Navotas City Police conducted a special operation on June 18, 2004, which resulted in
the arrest of a certain Alvin Carpio (Carpio) for illegal possession of dangerous drugs
and seizure from Carpio’s possession of 15 heat-sealed plastic sachets containing
shabu. When questioned by the police, Carpio admitted that the shabu came from
accused-appellant Maongco. Consequently, the police planned an operation to
apprehend accused-appellant Maongco and formed a team for this purpose,
composed of PO1 Arugay, PO2 Ong, PO2 Geoffrey Huertas (Huertas), and PO1 Jesus
del Fierro (Del Fierro). On June 19, 2004, after coordination with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the police team was briefed about the operation. The
police team allowed Carpio to talk to accused-appellant Maongco on the cellphone
to arrange for a sale transaction of shabu. At around 10:30 in the morning, the police
team, accompanied and guided by Carpio, proceeded to the vicinity of Quezon
corner Roces Avenues in Quezon City frequented by accused-appellant Maongco.
PO1 Arugay, PO2 Ong, and Carpio rode a taxi, while PO1 Del Fierro and PO2 Huertas
followed in an owner-type jeep. Carpio spotted accused-appellant Maongco at a
waiting shed and pointed out the latter to the police. PO2 Arugay alighted from the
taxi and approached accused-appellant Maongco. PO2 Arugay introduced himself to
accused-appellant Maongco as Carpio’s cousin, and claimed that Carpio was sick
and could not be there personally. PO2 Arugay then asked from accused-appellant
Maongco for Carpio’s order of “dalawang bulto.” Accused-appellant Maongco drew
out from his pocket a sachet of shabu and showed it to PO2 Arugay. When PO2
Arugay got hold of the sachet of shabu, he immediately revealed that he was a police
officer, arrested accused-appellant Maongco, and apprised the latter of his
constitutional rights. When the police team questioned accused-appellant Maongco
as to the other “bulto” of shabu Carpio had ordered, accussed-appellant disclosed
that the same was in the possession of accused-appellant Bandali, who was then at
Jollibee Pantranco branch along Quezon Avenue. The police team, with Carpio and
accused-appellant Maongco, went to the said restaurant where accused-appellant
Maongco identified accused-appellant Bandali to the police team as the one wearing
a blue shirt. PO2 Ong approached accused-appellant Bandali and demanded from
the latter the other half of the drugs ordered. Accused-appellant Bandali voluntarily
handed over a sachet of shabu to PO2 Ong. Thereafter, PO2 Ong apprised accused-
appellant Bandali of his constitutional rights and arrested him. Afterwards, the police
team brought accused-appellants to the police station in Navotas City. At the police
station, PO1 Arugay marked the sachet of shabu from accused-appellant Maongco
with the initials “MMY,” while PO2 Ong marked the sachet of shabu from accused-
appellant Bandali with the initials “PBS.” PO1 Arugay and PO2 Ong turned over the two
sachets of shabu to the custody of PO1 Del Fierro and SPO1 Sugui. The sachets of
shabu were then inventoried, photographed in the presence of accused-appellants,
and submitted for laboratory examination.

Issue: 1) Whether the Maongco is guilty of illegal sale of prohibited drugs.

2) Whether Maongco is also guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs.
Held: 1) No, he was guilty of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs. In the case of accused-
appellant Maongco, the Court finds that the RTC and the Court of Appeals both erred
in convicting him in Criminal Case No. Q-04-127731 for the illegal sale of shabu under
Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. The evidence on record does not support
accused-appellant Maongco’s conviction for said crime, especially considering the
following answers of prosecution witness PO1 Arugay during the latter’s cross-
examination, practically admitting the lack of consideration/payment for the sachet of
shabu.
As for the illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, it must be proven that (1) the accused
passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by
any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly
made the delivery. Worthy of note is that the delivery may be committed even without
consideration. It is not disputed that accused-appellant Maongco, who was working
as a taxi driver at the time of his arrest,26 had no authority under the law to deliver any
dangerous drug. The existence of the two other elements was established by PO1
Arugay’s testimony.

2) Yes. Well-settled in jurisprudence that the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
necessarily includes the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.33 The same
ruling may also be applied to the other acts penalized under Article II, Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 because for the accused to be able to trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit, or transport any
dangerous drug, he must necessarily be in possession of said drugs.
People v. Dimaano (2016) – RA 9165; Substantial adherence;
Opening smaller sachets placed in a bigger one could
contaminate the specimen.

G.R. No. 174481

SECOND DIVISION

LEONEN, J.:

Dimaano went to Manila Domestic Airport for her travel from

Manila to Cebu. She submitted herself to body frisking at the
airport where two sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride
was found in her panties (sachets were heat-sealed). NUP Bilugot
placed the two sachets of shabu in one plastic bag and
immediately handed it over to SPO2 Ragadio who marked the
same as two sachets of shabu. She was charged with attempted
transportation of dangerous drugs. During the trial, the plane
ticket was not presented as evidence in court and NUP Bilugot
testified that she recovered from Dimaano one sachet of shabu
but she is not sure whether such sachet contained several
sachets. While SPO2 Regadio testified that he recalled receiving
two plastic sachets from NUP Bilugot. However, the shabu
presented in court by the prosecutor was two sachets of shabu
with 4 and 3 smaller sachets.

Issue: WON the failure of SPO2 Regadio to mark all the 7 smaller
sachets of shabu exculpates Dimaano.

Ruling: No.

"Slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police from

the prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti [as
provided in Section 21] should not exculpate an otherwise
guilty defendant."
 Thus, "substantial adherence" 89 to Section 21 will suffice,
and, as section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
provides:

[N]on-compliance with [the] requirements [of Section

21] 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[.]

In this case, only the two outer sachets could be marked because
the two sachets were heat-sealed. The two outer sachets would
have to be opened for the seven smaller sachets to be marked.
This would have contaminated the specimen.

Thus, the prosecution successfully established the identity

of the corpus delicti.

Issue: WON the discrepancies in the testimonies of NUP Bilugot

and SPO2 Regadio breaks the chain of custody of the seized
drugs obtained from Dimaano.

Ruling: No.

xxx the chain of custody was unbroken. Both NUP Bilugot and
SPO2 Ragadio testified that after NUP Bilugot seized the
specimen, she immediately endorsed it to SPO2 Ragadio.

We agree with the Court of Appeals when it cited People v. Dulay,

which states that:

[I]n 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 suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police
officers or deviation from the regular performance of their
duties. . .

We find no ill motive on the part of NUP Bilugot or SPO2 Ragadio

to implicate accused-appellant had it not been true that sachets of
methamphetamine hydrochloride were seized from her.

Subissue: WON the failure to present in court the airline

ticket bearing Dimaano’s name disproves the allegation that
she was at the airport at the time of the arrest.

Ruling: Not included in the Ruling.

With respect to the airline ticket, the Court of Appeals agreed

with the trial court that it need not be presented in court to prove
that Dimaano attempted to transport methamphetamine
hydrochloride. According to the Court of Appeals, the
"indorsement letter" of Police Chief Inspector Roseller N. Fabian
to the City Prosecutor of Pasay, which stated that Dimaano was
apprehended at the initial check-in departure area of the Manila
International Airport, proved that Dimaano was bound for Cebu to
transport dangerous drugs.

Note:

Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

punishes the transportation of dangerous drugs. The provision
states, in part:

Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,

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.

The attempt to transport dangerous drugs is punished by the

same penalty prescribed for its commission:

SEC. 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or

conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be
penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the
commission of the same as provided under this Act:

....

(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,

distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical[.]

To transport a dangerous drug is to "carry or convey [it] from one

place to another."79

For an accused to be convicted of this crime, the prosecution

must prove its essential element: the movement of the dangerous
drug from one place to another.

In cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous

Drugs Act of 2002, the prosecution must prove "the existence of
the prohibited drug[.]"

"[T]he prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus

delicti has been preserved," because "the evidence involved—the
seized chemical—is not readily identifiable by sight or touch and
can easily be tampered with or substituted."
To show that "the drugs examined and presented in court
were the very ones seized [from the accused]," testimony as to
the "chain of custody" of the seized drugs must be presented.

Chain of custody is: 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 of the seized item, the date and time
when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition and is governed by Section 21 of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Section 21, before amendment by Republic Act No. 10640 in

2013, provides, in part:

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[.]
People v. Opiana (2015) - Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by
Republic Act No. 9346;

G.R. No. 200797

SECOND DIVISION

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Informant Scorer introduced Serrano, a police officer, to Opiana,

knowing that the latter is engaged in illegal drug trade. Makati
Anti-Drug Abuse Counsil then conducted an entrapment
operation. Serrano, acting as poseur-buyer, bought shabu from
Opania. After making the pre-arranged signal, Opania was
apprehended and when bodily frisked. 19 heat-sealed sachets of
shabu were recovered from Opania. Opania was charged and
convicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. During the trial, there has been no photographs taken
and no testimony as to what happened with the evidence
after the same was submitted for laboratory examination but
the same was positively identified by Serrano. The trial court
convicted Opania.

Aggrieved, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). In

his Brief, appellant alleged that the buy-bust team did not observe
the proper procedure governing the handling, custody and
disposition of the illegal drugs. In particular, he contended that
there was a gap in the chain of custody as it was unclear what
happened to the specimen after it was delivered to the crime
laboratory and examined by the forensic chemist or how it was
brought to the court. The defense also lamented the failure of the
police officers to secure a search warrant or warrant of arrest
despite ample time to do the same.

Issue: WON Opania is guilty of the crime charged.

Ruling: Yes.
What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug in evidence."

Similarly, the prosecution satisfactorily established the following

elements for the illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation
of Section 11, to wit: appellant was shown to have been in
possession of 0.74 gram of shabu, a prohibited drug; his
possession was not authorized by law; and that he freely and
consciously possessed the said illegal drug.
People v. Posing (2013) - less than strict compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of
custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible

G.R. No. 196973

SECOND DIVISION

PEREZ, J.:

An asset informed SPO1 Angeles about the illegal ativities of

Posing, a known drug pusher. Police officers conducted a buy
bust operation. Informant introduced under covered SPO1
Angeles to Posing. Angeles asked Posing if he could buy shabu
from Posing. The latter pulled out the shabu and Angeles paid
Posing using marked money. The apprehending team frisked
posing and recovered from him the buy-bust money and another
sachet of shabu. Afterwards, Posing and the confiscated shabu
were brought to the station. SPO1 Angeles marked the 2 sachet
of shabu. Later on, the same was turned over to PO2 Sales who
prepared a request for laboratory examination. On the same day,
the specimens were delivered by PO1 Nicart to PNP for
quantitative and qualitative examination and it was later confirmed
to be Shabu.

Posing argued that there were lapses in the procedure observed

by the apprehending officers, like SPO1 Angeles’ failure to recall
the duty officer to whom he turned over the specimens, and
the officer who brought the specimens to the crime
laboratory. Also, he questioned the absence of an inventory
report of the confiscated drugs and that there were no
photographs taken in the presence of the accused-appellant and
that of a representative from the media or the Department of
Justice or any elected public officer.

Issue: WON the integrity of the evidence was preserved.

Ruling: Yes.
xxx time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that less
than strict compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of
custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items
inadmissible.
Note:

 For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the

illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the
identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.
 What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of evidence of corpus delicti.
 In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act,
credence should be given to the narration of the incident by
the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police
officers who are presumed to have performed their
duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the
contrary.
 In this regard, the defense failed to show any ill motive or
odious intent on the part of the police operatives to
impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the
life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case of
appellant.
 Incidentally, if these were simply trumped-up charges
against him, it remains a question why no administrative
charges were brought against the police operatives.
 Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1,
Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 defines
"Chain of Custody" as follows:
o "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 of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody were
made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.
o In Malillin v. People, we laid down the chain of custody
requirements that must be met in proving that the
seized drugs are the same ones presented in court: (1)
testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
into evidence; and (2) witnesses should describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no
change in the condition of the item and no opportunity
for someone not in the chain to have possession of
the item.
o As to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, the prosecution must establish the following
elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item
or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or
regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized
by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug.
People v. Pancho (2015)

G.R. No. 206910

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
JULIET PANCHO, Accused-Appellant

FIRST DIVISION

Perez, J.:

Police officers conducted a search in two storey house of Pancho

by virtue of a search warrant. The raiding team was accompanied
by a three barangay tanods. They started searching the first floor
but such search yielded negative result. They now went to the
second floor. They searched the first room in the presence of the
tanods and found three sachets of shabu inside a jewellery box
on a cabinet divider. The police officer marked the sachets and
recorded them in the confiscation receipt inside the house. During
the trial, Pancho's lawyer asked the witness police officer if the
shabu were marked in the office and the latter respond in
affirmative but immediately changed his answer. The trial court
convicted Pancho. On appeal, Pancho claimed that there was no
compliance with the procedure and the tanods were not
presented to testify who, as Pancho claimed, arrived only after the
search was made.

Issue: WON Pancho is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling: Yes.

In Valleno v. People,9 the Court ruled that –

In order for prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous

drug to prosper, there must be proof that (1) the accused
was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a
 prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not
authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.10

The prosecution has duly established all these elements.

1. By virtue of a search warrant, PO1 Veloso found three

packets of suspected shabu in one of the rooms of accused-
appellant’s house. The three packets of shabu were found
not on accused-appellant’s person but on top of a cabinet
divider inside her room. Accused-appellant was deemed to
have been in constructive possession of the packets
of shabu because they were under her control and
management.

"[C]onstructive possession exists when the drug is under the

dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to
exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found."

2. Accused-appellant is not authorized by law to possess the

shabu.
3. Mere possession of a regulated drug per se
constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge
or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused
absent a satisfactory explanation of such possession – the
onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to explain the
absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.

Accused-appellant’s bare denials will not suffice to overcome the

presumption of knowledge.

Accused-appellant emphasizes the inconsistencies in the

testimonies of the two police officers. PO1 Veloso stated that the
living room on the first floor of accused-appellant’s house was
searched first, while PO2 Ilagan narrated that the search started
on the second floor of the house. Moreover, accused-appellant
claimed that PO1 Veloso initially related that markings were done
in the police station, only to backtrack and declare that markings
were done in accused-appellant’s house.

The inconsistency on the order of the search is a trivial

matter and does not detract from the fact that all elements for
the crime were duly established.

In relation to the marking of the seized shabu, PO1 Veloso

repeatedly declared that the marking was done in accused-
appellant’s house.

It was actually accused-appellant’s lawyer who asked if the

markings were done at the office, and PO1 Veloso inadvertently
answered in the affirmative, but he immediately corrected
himself when the mistake was pointed out to him.

The non-presentation of the barangay tanods is not fatal to

the case of the prosecution. The more relevant testimonies are
those of the members of the raiding team who testified that they
recovered packets of shabu from accused-appellant’s house.

With respect to non-compliance with procedure laid down in the

seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, the primordial
consideration is the preservation of the identity and integrity
of the corpus delicti.

Accused-appellant cites as an irregularity the failure of the

prosecution to present photographs of the seized items and
that there were no representatives from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) during the conduct of the
inventory of the seized items.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21(a) of R.A.

No. 9165 offer some flexibility when a proviso added that "non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items."

In People v. Salvador,16 this Court ruled that the failure to submit

in evidence the required physical inventory of the seized
drugs and the photograph, as well as the absence of a member
of the media or the DOJ, pursuant to Section 21, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest
illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.

"What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity

and [the] evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused."

In the instant case, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs
was not broken.

The prosecution established that PO1 Veloso seized three

packets of shabu from the bedroom of accused-appellant. He
handed them over to PO2 Ilagan, who made markings on the
items and prepared a confiscation receipt of the same while in
appellant’s house. PO2 Ilagan brought the confiscated shabu to
the police station where he prepared a letter-request addressed to
the PNP Crime Laboratory. It was PO2 Ilagan, accompanied by
PO1 Veloso, who went to the PNP Crime Laboratory to bring the
specimen and the letter-request. PO2 Roma received
the shabu and forwarded the same to the forensic chemist. The
chain of custody was testified to by the police authorities. Clearly,
the recovery and the handling of the seized illegal drugs were
satisfactorily- established in this case.

The failure of the members of the raiding team to deliver the

seized items to the judge who issued the warrant becomes
immaterial because records show that the chain of custody is
intact.
Note:

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the procedure to be

followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, to wit:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized,

and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody
of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and

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

The provisions of Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing

Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provide:

SECTION 21. x x x.

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and

control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items[.]
G.R. No. 185719 June 17, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,

vs.
MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y
ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y ENRIQUE, AND REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS,
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

Facts: Appellants Marcelino Collado (Marcelino) and Myra Collado (Myra) were charged with the
crimes of sale of dangerous drugs and maintenance of a den, dive or resort in violation of Sections 5 and 6
of Article II, RA 9165 docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 13781-D and 13782-D.

Marcelino was also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the
same law docketed as Criminal Case No. 13783-D.

On the other hand, appellants Mark Cipriano (Cipriano), Samuel Sherwin Latario (Latario), Reynaldo
Ranada (Ranada), together with co-accused Melody Apelo (Apelo), Marwin Abache (Abache), Michael
Angelo Sumulong (Sumulong), and Jay Madarang (Madarang), were charged with possession of drug
paraphernalia in violation of Section 14, Article II of RA 9165, docketed as Criminal Case No. 13784-D.

Version of the Prosecution:

PO2 Noble received information from a civilian asset that spouses Marcelino and Myra were engaged in
selling shabu and that drug users, including out-of-school youth, were using their residence in 32 R.
Hernandez St., San Joaquin, Pasig City, for their drug sessions. After confirming the reported activities,
SPO2 Cruz looked for an asset who could introduce them to Marcelino and Myra in the ensuing buy-bust
operation.

A buy-bust operation team was thereafter formed which proceeded to Marcelino’s and Myra’s residence.
Upon reaching the target area, the asset introduced PO2 Noble to Marcelino as a regular buyer of
shabu.When asked how much shabu he needed, PO2 Noble replied, "dalawang piso," which means
₱200.00 worth of drugs. But when PO2 Noble was handing over the marked money to Marcelino, the
latter motioned that the same be given to his wife, Myra, who accepted the money. Marcelino then took
from his pocket a small metal container from which he brought out a small plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance and gave the same to PO2 Noble. While PO2 Noble was inspecting its contents, he
noticed smoke coming from a table inside the house of the couple around which were seven persons.
When PO2 Noble gave the pre-arranged signal, the backup team rushed to the scene. Simultaneously,
PO2 Noble introduced himself as a policeman and arrested Marcelino. He frisked him and was able to
confiscate the metal container that contained another sachet of white crystalline substance. PO2 Noble
wrote the markings "MCC-RNN October 9, 2004" on both the plastic sachets of white substance sold to
him by Marcelino and the one found inside the metal container.

Meanwhile, SPO2 Cruz and another police officer went inside the house of Marcelino and Myra, where
they found Apelo, Cipriano, Ranada, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang and Latario gathered around a table
littered with various drug paraphernalia such as an improvised water pipe, strips of aluminum foil with
traces of white substance, disposable lighters, and plastic sachets. A strip of aluminum foil used for
smoking marijuana was recovered from Ranada. The buy-bust team arrested all these persons, advised
them of their constitutional rights, and brought them to police headquarters for investigation and drug
testing.

A chemistry report on all the seized items yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
Another chemistry report showed Marcelino, Apelo, Cipriano, and Ranada positive for drug use while
Myra, Abache, Sumulong, Madarang, and Latario were found negative.

The RTC convicted the appellants and several other accused for violations of Republic Act (RA) No.
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s Decision with modification as to appellants Mark Cipriano
and Samuel Sherwin Latario, including co-accused Melody Apelo, Marwin Abache, Michael Angelo
Sumulong and Jay Madarang – insofar as they were found GUILTY, not as principals, but as
ACCESSORIES in the offense of violation of Section 14, Article II of RA No. 9165.

Issue: (1) Whether or not the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 was not followed. NO

(2) Whether or not the CA erred in convicting Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and
Madarang as accessories. YES

Held: (1) Appellants argue that the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 was not followed.
They specifically harp on the fact that the confiscated drugs were not photographed and inventoried.

Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides:

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

Pursuant to the above-cited provisions, this Court has consistently ruled that the failure of the police
officers to inventory and photograph the confiscated items are not fatal to the prosecution’s cause,
provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized substance were preserved, as in this case.
Here, PO2 Noble, after apprehending Marcelino and confiscating from him the sachets of shabu,
immediately placed his markings on them.

In the Request for Laboratory Examination the seized items were listed and inventoried. After the conduct
of the laboratory examination, Chemistry Report No. D-807-04 revealed that the contents of the said
sachets tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

(2) With regard to Criminal Case No. 13784-D for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, we find that
the CA erred in convicting Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and Madarang as accessories. As
pointed out by Justice Arturo D. Brion:

"[I]llegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
during parties, social gatherings or meetings under Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of malum
prohibitum, that is, the act is made wrong or evil because there is a law prohibiting it. x x x

Since violation of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of mala prohibita, the degree of participation of
the offenders is not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are penalized to the same extent.
There is no principal or accomplice or accessory to consider. In short, the degree of participation of the
offenders does not affect their liability, and the penalty on all of them are the same whether they are
principals or merely accomplices or accessories.

In addition, Section 98 of RA 9165 specifically provides that "[n]otwithstanding any law, rule or
regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall
not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. It is therefore clear that the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code, particularly Article 19 on Accessories, cannot be applied in
determining the degree of participation and criminal liability of Ranada’s co-accused.

At any rate, this Court is convinced that only Ranada should be held liable for violation of Section 14 of
RA 9165. It is clear that it was only Ranada who was caught having in his possession an aluminum foil
intended for using dangerous drugs. As to the other co-accused, namely Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario,
Madarang, and Sumulong, not one drug paraphernalia was found in their possession. The police officers
were only able to find the other drug paraphernalia scattered on top of a table. It is already established that
there was no conspiracy between Ranada and the other co-accused. As the CA correctly held, mere
presence at the scene of the crime does not imply conspiracy.

Therefore, Apelo, Abache, Cipriano, Latario, Madarang, and Sumulong should be acquitted of the offense
of violation of Section 14, Article II, RA 9165, since the prosecution was not able to clearly show specific
overt acts that would prove that they were in possession of drug paraphernalia.
G.R. No. 200748 July 23, 2014

JAIME D. DELA CRUZ, Petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts: Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act
No. (R.A.) 9165, or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, by the Graft Investigation and
Prosecution Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman.

VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION

The evidence of the prosecution reveals that at 8:00 a.m. of 31 January 2006, the agents and special
investigators of the NBI received a Complaint from Corazon Absin (Corazon) and Charito Escobido
(Charito). The complainants claimed that at 1:00 a.m. of that same day, Ariel Escobido (Ariel), the live-in
partner of Corazon and son of Charito, was picked up by several unknown male persons believed to be
police officers for allegedly selling drugs. An errand boy gave a number to the complainants, and when
the latter gave the number a ring, they were instructed to proceed to the Gorordo Police Office located
along Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. In the said police office, they met "James" who demanded from them
₱100,000, later lowered to ₱40,000, in exchange for the release of Ariel. After the meeting, the
complainants proceeded to the NBI to file a complaint and narrate the circumstances of the meeting to the
authorities. While at the NBI, Charito even received calls supposedly from "James" instructing her to
bring the money as soon as possible.

The special investigators at the NBI verified the text messages received by the complainants. A team was
immediately formed to implement an entrapment operation. The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz
by using a pre-marked 500 bill dusted with fluorescent powder, which was made part of the amount
demanded by "James" and handed by Corazon. Petitioner was later brought to the forensic laboratory of
the NBI where forensic examination was done by forensic chemist Rommel Paglinawan. Petitioner was
required to submit his urine for drug testing. It later yielded a positive result for presence of dangerous
drugs as indicated in the confirmatory test result.

VERSION OF THE DEFENSE

The defense presented petitioner as the lone witness. He denied the charges and testified that while eating,
he was arrested allegedly for extortion by NBI agents. When he was at the NBI Office, he was required to
extract urine for drug examination, but he refused saying he wanted it to be done by the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory and not by the NBI. His request was, however, denied. He also
requested to be allowed to call his lawyer prior to the taking of his urine sample, to no avail.

The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15,
Article II of R.A. 9165.

The CA affirmed the RTC's decision.

Issue: Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal. NO

Held: Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be
positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum
of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of
Article VIII of this Act.

The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act, but only
for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. 9165.

First, "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean any person apprehended or arrested for
any crime.The phrase must be read in context and understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15
comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.

Furthermore, making the phrase "a person apprehended or arrested" in Section 15 applicable to all
persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts, not only under R.A. 9165 but for all other crimes, is
tantamount to a mandatory drug testing of all persons apprehended or arrested for any crime. To
overextend the application of thisprovision would run counter to our pronouncement in Social Justice
Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, to wit:

x x x [M]andatory drug testing can never be random and suspicionless. To impose mandatory drug testing
on the accused is a blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution, contrary to
the stated objectives of RA 6195. Drug testing in this case would violate a person’s right to privacy
guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced
to incriminate themselves. (Emphasis supplied)

The drug test is not covered by allowable non-testimonial compulsion.

We find that petitioner never raisedthe alleged irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment and raises
the issue only now before this tribunal; hence, he is deemed to have waived his right to question the
validity of his arrest curing whatever defect may have attended his arrest. However, "a waiver of an
illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an
illegal warrantless arrest."

We are aware of the prohibition against testimonial compulsion and the allowable exceptions to such
proscription. Cases where non-testimonial compulsion has been allowed reveal, however, that the pieces
of evidence obtained were all material to the principal cause of the arrest.

The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence
when it may be material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does
not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding hand of counsel is not required.

In the instant case, we fail to see howa urine sample could be material to the charge of extortion. The
RTC and the CA, therefore, both erred when they held that the extraction of petitioner’s urine for
purposes of drug testing was "merely a mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial
investigation."

The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self-incrimination.

It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and tested for drugs. He also asked
for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He was adamant in exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved
futile, because he was still compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under those circumstances.

The pertinent provisions in Article III of the Constitution are clear:

Section 2. The right of the people to be securein their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

In the face of these constitutional guarantees, we cannot condone drug testing of all arrested persons
regardless of the crime or offense for which the arrest is being made.
G.R. No. 206229, February 04, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMY DASIGAN Y OLIVA, Accused-

Appellant.

Facts: On December 5, 2006, at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) office, Melvin Jones
Grandstand, Harrison Road, Baguio City, a male confidential informant reported to Police Chief Inspector
Luisito Meris that a certain alias Amy is engaged in delivering Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also
known as Shabu within the vicinity of the La Trinidad Trading Post at La Trinidad, Benguet. PCI Meris
relayed the information to the PDEA Regional Director, Col. Inmodias and the latter formed a team
tasked to conduct the operation against alias Amy and cause her eventual arrest. PCI Meris was
designated Team Leader and PO2 Corpuz, SPO2 Agbayani and SPO1 Ventura were tasked as arresting
officers.

The team leader, PCI Meris then directed PO2 Corpuz and the confidential informant to conduct
surveillance within the vicinity of the La Trinidad Trading Post and look in to the activities of alias Amy.

Thus, the following day, December 6, 2006, at around 4:30 o' clock in the morning, a woman named Amy
arrived and the confidential informant met and talked to her before he called PO2 Corpuz. PO2 Corpuz
was introduced to Amy as the buyer of shabu. Amy said she had something else to do and so she just gave
PO2 Corpuz her cell phone number.

On December 8, 2006, PO2 Corpuz called Amy and asked her regarding their transaction as he was
willing to buy shabu worth two thousand pesos (PHP 2,000.00). Amy said she will deliver the shabu the
following day, December 9, 2006 at the vicinity of the La Trinidad Trading Post.

On December 9, 2006 at around 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day, the team went to the La
Trinidad Trading Post and PO2 Corpuz called Amy through her cell phone. Amy answered and directed
PO2 Corpuz to go to the road leading to Bayabas, La Trinidad, Benguet and she would deliver the shabu
there. The team proceeded as directed and PO2 Corpuz as the poseur-buyer with PHP 2,000.00 in his
possession positioned himself at the entrance of the road leading to Bayabas while the rest of the team
stayed at a place where they could see the transaction going on.

Thirty minutes later, Amy arrived. She brought what appeared to be small transparent plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance, picked out two sachets and gave it to PO2 Corpuz. He asked
whether the items were of good quality to which Amy answered that those were first class. He pressed the
white crystals and right away it crumbled into powdery substance and he suspected that the substance was
shabu. Amy then demanded the payment of Two Thousand Pesos. He was ready with the amount but he
was instructed that once the shabu was given to him, he need not hand the money any longer. Thus, PO2
Corpuz placed the two sachets in his pant[s] pocket and held Amy's right hand and announced Pulis ako!
This was the pre-arranged signal and so the rest of the team rushed to the scene and SPO1 Ventura held
Amy while SPO2 Agbayani told her her constitutional rights. PCI Meris then told Amy to empty her
pockets. Amy complied and PCI Meris saw her actually bringing out her cell phone and four sealed
sachets each containing a white substance similar to the ones she handed to PO2 Corpuz. PO2 Corpuz
then got the sealed sachets and he turned over all the six sachets, the two sachets sold to him and the four
sachets which Amy brought out from her pocket, as well as the cell phone to the team leader PCI Meris.
PCI Meris then held on to the items as they went to the La Trinidad Police Station.
Amy was then brought to the La Trinidad Police Station purposely for the case to be entered in the police
blotter. The team with the accused in tow went back to the PDEA Office where she was booked and a
Booking Sheet and Arrest Report was prepared. She was then identified as Amy Dasigan, the accused in
this case. PCI Meris brought out the seized items and directed his team members to put their initials on
said items. When asked why the initials were not indicated on the plastic sachets at the time of the arrest,
PCI Meris explained that Bayabas, La Trinidad, Benguet, is a notorious place based on his personal
knowledge as he grew up in La Trinidad, Benguet as well as based on statistics of the PNP of La
Trinidad, Benguet. Being a notorious place and fearing that the accused may have some back-up, he
deemed it best that the marking be done in their office and so they left the place right after the arrest of
the accused.

PO2 Corpuz, SPO1 Ventura and SPO2 Agbayani each placed their initials on all the plastic sachets
containing suspected shabu. The initials CJA was for Cabily J. Agbayani; the initials AGC for Arieltino
G. Corpuz and the initials BAV for Bernardo A. Ventura. After placing their initials on the items seized,
PCI Meris turned over the seized items to the Evidence Custodian SPO3 Romeo L. Abordo, Sr.

SPO3 Romeo Abordo then prepared the inventory of the seized items consisting of two small heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and bearing the initials CJA, AGC and
BAV, four small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance also
bearing the initials CJA, AGC and BAV and one Nokia cell pohone with a SIM card.

On December 10, 2006, SPO3 Abordo brought the request for laboratory examination together with the
confiscated items to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was received by PO1 Joseph Andrew P.
Dulnuan.

PO1 Dulnuan of the PNP Crime Laboratory received the items from SPO3 Abordo. He compared the
items listed in the request with the items he received and finding it accurate, he placed a control number
on the request, logged in the request and accepted the turned-over items. PO1 Dulnuan then turned over
these same items to Forensic Chemist PSInsp. Edward Gayados.

SPInsp. Gayados' findings and conclusion state Qualitative examination conducted on the specimens gave
POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

The RTC convicted the accused of of illegal possession of shabu under Section 11 (3), and illegal sale
of shabu under Section 5, of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.

The CA affirmed.

Issues: (1) Whether or not the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165 was not followed. NO

(2) Whether or not the accused is guilty of Section 11 (3) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in
Criminal Case No. 07-CR-6702. YES

(3) Whether or not the accused is guilty Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case
No. 07-CR-6703. NO

Held: (1) SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody
of all dangerous drugs, plant sources 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.

x x x 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.

As to the fact that the seized items were marked only at the police station and not during the actual
apprehension and seizure, in People v. Loks, we held that the marking of the seized substance
immediately upon arrival at the police station qualified as a compliance with the marking requirement.
Such can also be said here, especially in view of the explanation of PCI Meris that the place of arrest had
a notorious reputation based on his personal knowledge as well as on police statistics, and that the
arresting officers deemed it best that they leave said place right after the arrest of the accused-appellant
for fear that the latter might have some back-up.

Clearly, there was no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and examination of
the shabu. The shabu that was seized from accused-appellant, taken to the PDEA Office and thereat duly
marked, then taken to the crime laboratory and subjected to a qualitative examination, and thereafter
introduced in evidence against accused-appellant was the same shabu confiscated from accused-appellant
when she was caught in flagrante delicto possessing the same.

(2) Under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the elements of the offense of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs 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.29chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

All these elements were proven. First, the four plastic sachets containing shabu, which are the subject of
the charge for illegal possession of dangerous or prohibited drugs, were found on accused-appellant's
person during the search conducted by the PDEA officers following accused-appellant's arrest in flagrante
delicto for illegal sale of shabu. In People v. Montevirgen, we reiterated the rule that a person lawfully
arrested may be searched for anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission
of an offense without warrant. Second, accused-appellant was not able to demonstrate his legal authority
to possess the subject shabu. And third, accused-appellant's act of giving PO2 Corpuz, the poseur-buyer,
one sachet and telling him "maganda ito, first class ito," and then bringing out more sachets and selecting
two sachets to give to PO2 Corpuz indicates that she freely and consciously possessed the subject shabu.
Consequently, accused-appellant was correctly charged and convicted of illegal possession of shabu.
(3) For a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must concur:

(1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.

What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of evidence of corpus delicti.

In People v. Hong Yeng E and Tsien Tsien Chua, where the marked money was also shown to accused-
appellant but it was not actually given to her as she was immediately arrested when the shabu was handed
over to the poseur-buyer, the Court held that it is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale
actually took place, and what consummates the buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the
poseur-buyer and, in turn, the seller's receipt of the marked money. While the parties may have agreed on
the selling price of the shabu and delivery of payment was intended, these do not prove consummated
sale. Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after, is required.

In the case at bar, although accused-appellant was shown the consideration before she handed over the
subject shabu to the poseur-buyer, such is not sufficient to consummate the sale. As previously held by
the Court, looking at a thing does not transfer possession of it to the beholder. Such a tenet would make
window shoppers liable for theft.

Accused-appellant's exoneration from the charge of illegal sale of dangerous or prohibited drugs,
however, does not spell freedom from all criminal liability as she may still be convicted for illegal
possession of dangerous or prohibited drugs. It is settled that possession is necessarily included in the sale
of dangerous or prohibited drugs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff Appellee,
vs.
VENERANDO DELA CRUZ y SEBASTIAN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:
On July 25, 2003, police asset Warren Ebio (Ebio) received
information from another asset that he could purchase shabu by
calling a certain person. He thus called the said person through
cellular phone and agreed to meet with him in front of the
barangay hall of Lerma, Naga City. Accordingly, a pre-operation
plan to entrap the alleged seller was immediately drawn up in
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. SPO1
Ruben Antonio (SPO1 Antonio), SPO1 Cornelio Morano (SPO1
Morano), PO3 Raul Bongon (PO3 Bongon) and SPO3Julio
Tuason (SPO3 Tuason) then formed themselves into a buy-bust
team. Ebio was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given
three ₱500.00 bills as buy-bust money, while PO3 Bongon was
tasked to apprehend the seller after the consummation of the
transaction. Upon their arrival at the designated area, Ebio, SPO3
Tuason and SPO1 Morano alighted from their vehicle. Ebio
proceeded towards the meeting place while the other two
positioned themselves nearby. A few minutes later, a man riding a
motorcycle arrived. The buy-bust team recognized him as the
seller based on his attire as described by him to Ebio. Ebio
introduced himself as the buyer. When the man asked for
payment, he gave him the buy-bust money. The man then took
out two transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance from his right pocket and gave them to Ebio.
Thereupon, Ebio took off his hat, the pre-arranged signal that the
transaction was already consummated. Immediately, PO3
Bongon, SPO1 Morano and SPO1 Antonio rushed towards the
man and apprehended him. They recovered from him the buy-
bust money and another plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance. Immediately after Ebio turned over to him
the two sachets subject of the sale, PO3 Bongon marked the
same with "RSB-1" and "RSB-2." On the other hand, he marked
the third sachet recovered from the seller after he conducted a
search on him with "RSB-3." PO3 Bongon thereafter turned over
these seized items together with the marked money to SPO1
Antonio for proper disposition. A police investigation followed
where the person arrested was identified as the appellant.
Afterwards, SPO1 Antonio brought the sachets to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory for examination, during which
Forensic Chemist Josephine Macura Clemen (Clemen) found
their contents positive for shabu.Thus, an Information for Violation
of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 was filed against appellant.
RTC-appellant was found guilty as charged
CA-affirmed the RTC decision
ISSUES:

1. WON the elements of the sale of illegal drugs were established to

support appellant’s conviction of the said offense. YES.

2. WON the failure to mention the place where the three plastic
sachets of shabu were marked constitutes a gap in the chain of
custody of evidence. NO.
RULING:

1. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, [such as

shabu], the following elements must be duly established: (1) the
identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the
consideration, and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked
money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.
Here, the prosecution submitted evidence that duly established
the elements of illegal sale of shabu. It positively identified
appellant as the seller of the seized illegal substance which
turned out to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug. Appellant sold and
delivered the drug for ₱1,500.00 to Ebio, a police asset who acted
as poseur-buyer. Verily, all the elements of the sale of illegal
drugs were established to support appellant’s conviction of the
said offense.

2. Chain of custody is "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."

Clearly, the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody

of the shabu from its possession by the police officers, testing in
the laboratory to determine its composition, until the same was
presented as evidence in court. Hence, even if there was no
statement as to where the markings were made, what is important
is that the seized specimen never left the custody of PO3 Bongon
until he turned over the same to SPO1 Antonio and that
thereafter, the chain of custody was shown to be unbroken.
Indeed, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu is
shown to have been properly preserved and the crucial links in
the chain of custody unbroken.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we uphold appellant’s

conviction of the offense charged.
LUIS DERILO y GEPOLEO, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:

On November 19, 2004, at around 6:00 A.M., a team of police

officers, led by SPO1 Sonny Evasco, conducted a police
operation to serve a search warrant at the residence of the
petitioner located in Lay-a, Gate, Bulan, Sorsogon. The police
officers coordinated with the barangay captain of Gate who, in
turn, sent two barangay tanods – Basilio Gueta and Santiago
Españo – to accompany and assist the police officers in the
service of the search warrant.

After an initial search of the petitioner’s pockets and wallet, SPO1

Evasco instructed Gueta and Españo to conduct a search inside
the petitioner’s bedroom (of the place described in the search
warrant) as a precautionary measure for the police officers to
avoid being accused of planting evidence. During the search, the
barangay tanods, under the supervision of SPO1 Evasco,
recovered twelve (12) plastic sachets inside a matchbox, each
containing white crystalline substance.

The police officers also recovered suspected drug paraphernalia,

i.e., new and used aluminum foil, lighters, and a tube, which were
scattered in plain view in different parts of the house. Some of the
used aluminum foils were found under the house.

While at the scene, SPO1 Evasco proceeded to mark the

confiscated items with his initials, "S.B.E.," while SPO1 Calupit
took their photographs. In addition, SPO1 Evasco prepared an
inventory of the items seized, but the petitioner refused to sign the
inventory.
The petitioner and the seized items were then taken to the police
station. Thereafter, the seized items were brought to the court and
then to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination by SPO1
Calupit and PO2 Lobrin. At the PNP Crime Laboratory, SPO1
Alejandro Usi, a drug screener/laboratory technician, conducted
an initial field test of the drug specimens. Based on the
Certification of Laboratory Examination dated November 19,
2004, the test yielded positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.

The following day, P/Inspt. Josephine Clemens, the PNP Crime

Laboratory’s forensic chemist, conducted a confirmatory physical
and chemistry examination of the drug specimens. Based on the
Chemistry Report dated November 20, 2004, the twelve (12)
plastic sachets indeed contained shabu, thus confirming the result
of the earlier initial field test.

The prosecution charged the petitioner with violation of Sections

11 and 12, Article II of RA No. 9165, for possession of twelve (12)
plastic sachets containing 0.3485 gram of shabu and for
possession of drug paraphernalia, i.e., forty-one (41) pieces of
rolled aluminum foil, one (1) used aluminum foil, one (1) tube, two
(2) lighters, and one (1) matchbox, respectively.
RTC-found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both
crimes charged
CA-affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
ISSUES:
1. WON the chain of custody over the seized items "appears
broken and questionable,". YES.
2. WON the elements of illegal possession of equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous
drugs were established. NO.
RULING:
1. Criminal Case No. 04-711

To show an unbroken link in the chain of custody, the

prosecution’s evidence must include testimony about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the
time it is offered in court as evidence, such that every person who
handled the evidence would acknowledge how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and
the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
The same witness would then describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have its
possession. It is from the testimony of every witness who
handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be
derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the
same as that seized from the accused.

Thus, the following links must be established to ensure the

preservation of the identity and integrity of the confiscated drug:
1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; 2) the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; 3) the turnover by the investigating officer
of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and 4) the turnover and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

The marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of

the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the
preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.

After a critical review of the records, we hold that the prosecution

failed to establish that the drug specimens presented in court are
those allegedly seized from the petitioner.
First, the records are bereft of any evidence that would clearly
show that the twelve (12) plastic sachets supposedly containing
the shabu were ever marked by SPO1 Evasco, whether at the
scene or at the police station, and that they were marked in the
presence of the petitioner. In fact, based on the evidence on
record, there is only one set of markings on the twelve (12) plastic
sachets – the markings of "A-1" to "A-12" made by P/Inspt.
Clemens a day after the items were seized.

Second, there appears to be unexplained inconsistencies in the

drug specimens submitted by the police officers to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. The two laboratory reports show
inconsistencies with regard to the referenced markings on the
twelve (12) plastic sachets and, more importantly, to the weight of
the drug specimens – from 0.3485 gram in the first test and only
0.3133 gram in the second test.

Third, the prosecution’s evidence is seriously lacking in details as

to the links in the chain of custody of the seized items from the
time they were confiscated up to the time they were presented in
court.

All told, the totality of these circumstances – the failure to mark

the plastic sachets, the discrepancy in the weight, and the
uncertainty of the individuals who handled the seized items –
broke the chain of custody and tainted the integrity of the shabu
ultimately presented as evidence before the trial court. Given that
the prosecution failed to prove the indispensable element of
corpus delicti, the petitioner must be acquitted on the ground
of reasonable doubt.

2. Criminal Case No. 04-712

The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument,

apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under
Section 12 of RA No. 9165 are: (1) possession or control by
the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other
paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any
dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is
not authorized by law.

In the present case, there is no evidence showing that the

aluminum foil, tube, and lighters found in the petitioner's house
were fit or intended for introducing any dangerous drug into the
body. The prosecution did not bother to show that there were
traces of shabu on any of these alleged drug paraphernalia. In
fact, it appears that the only evidence that the prosecution offered
to prove this charge is the existence of the seized items by
themselves.

Petitioner Luis Derilo y Gepoleo is hereby ACQUITTED of the

charge of violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA No.
9165, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JUAN ASISLO y MATIO, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS:

Sometime in the second week of April 2008, the Philippine Drug

Enforcement Agency-Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-
CAR) Office received intelligence information from PDEA-La
Union about the proliferation and distribution of marijuana in La
Union, and the same revealed that the accused Juan Asislo had
delivered a huge volume of marijuana in Baguio City to an
unidentified buyer sometime in the first week of April 2008.
Regional Director PCI Edgar S. Apalla directed IAl Ferdinand
Natividad to coordinate and communicate with PDEA-La Union to
build a case against Asislo.

In the third week of April 2008, the confidential infonnant, "Jojo",

arrived at the Office of PDEA-CAR in Baguio City and introduced
himself. Natividad instructed him to continue dealing with Asislo,
and to inform them of any developments regarding Asislo's
alleged illicit activities. On April 28, 2008, Jojo reported that he
met Asislo along with his unidentified companions. Asislo asked
him to look for a buyer of the 300 kilos of marijuana in exchange
for a commission. Natividad ordered Jojo to inform Asislo that a
buyer from Manila was interested to purchase 200 kilos of
marijuana.

On May 2, 2008, Jojo reported that Asislo disclosed that the

prevailing price of marijuana was Pl,500.00 per kilo. Per
Natividad's instruction, Jojo apprised Asislo that the buyer from
Manila who was willing to buy 200 kilos of marijuana will be in
Baguio for a vacation. In a phone call, Asislo insisted in talking
with the buyer. Natividad talked with him through the phone and
reiterated to him his interest to buy 200 kilos of dried marijuana
leaves. However, Asislo notified him that he only had around 100
kilos of marijuana leaves. Natividad settled with Asislo, and asked
the latter to wait for his call for the delivery of the marijuana.

On May 8, 2008, Asislo called Natividad that they were prepared

to deliver about 110 kilos of marijuana on May 13, 2008. Upon
learning the negotiations of Natividad with Asislo, PCI Apalla
formed the team for the entrapment operation composing of
Natividad as the poseur-buyer, SPO4 Romeo Abordo as the team
leader, and SPO2 Cabily Agbayani and SPO1 Emerson
Lingbawan as the members of the back-up team and arresting
officers.

In the evening of May 12, 2008, they agreed to have their

transaction within the vicinity of Dontogan, Green Valley, Baguio
City, near a certain "car wash" area between 7 o'clock and 8
o'clock in the morning on May 13, 2008.

Around 5 o'clock in the morning on May 13, 2008, the entrapment

and arresting team proceeded to the area. Asislo related to
Natividad that he was with other four individuals on board a dark
blue Kia Besta van with plate number XFC 682. At 7:30 in the
morning, the Besta van stopped at about 30 meters from the
agreed place of transaction. Two men alighted from the vehicle
and approached Natividad. One of them was Jojo, who then
introduced the other as Asislo. Natividad asked Asislo to see the
marijuana before he pays. Thereafter, Asislo ordered the van's
driver, Jose Astudillo, to open the compartment. Natividad saw
five sacks and a plastic bag. Asislo asked his other companion,
Samuel Pal-iwen, to help him pull out one sack and opened the
same in front of Natividad. The sack was loaded with bricks of
marijuana.

Natividad removed his ball cap, their pre-arranged signal, and

held Asislo in a tight embrace. He removed his service firearm
and introduced himself as a PDEA agent. The back-up team
rushed to the scene and arrested the other accused. SPO2
Agbayani recited to Asislo and his companions their constitutional
rights. SPO1 Lingbawan searched the van, and found four sacks
containing bricks of marijuana and a plastic bag with two pieces of
tube type of marijuana leaves inside. SPO4 Abordo seized
Asislo's cell phone. The van used in transporting the marijuana
was impounded at the PDEA-CAR Office.

Because of the volume of the confiscated dangerous drugs, the

team brought the sacks of marijuana to the PDEA-CAR Field
Office for proper markings and documentations. Thereafter, the
drugs were turned over to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory Office at Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad,
Benguet for chemical analysis. Asislo and his two companions
were subjected to urine examination, which yielded negative
results, at the PNP Laboratory Office.

RTC convicted Asislo of the crime of illegal sale, while it acquitted

Astudillo and Pal-iwen due to insufficiency of evidence against
them and the failure of prosecution to establish conspiracy.
The CA, in affirming the decision of the RTC, held that the
presentation of the buy-bust money is not indispensable to the
prosecution of a drug case.
ISSUE:
WON buy-bust money is indispensable to the prosecution of a
drug case. NO.
RULING:

In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the

illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the
marked money consummate the illegal transaction. In the case at
bar, the sale was not consummated since there was no receipt of
the consideration. IA1 Natividad arrested Asislo immediately after
the latter opened one of the sacks loaded with bricks of
marijuana. It was also admitted that the agents did not prepare
marked money for the buy-bust operation.

Nevertheless, Asislo can still be liable for violation of Article II,

Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 for illegal delivery and transportation
of marijuana.

The essential element of the charge of illegal transportation of

dangerous drugs is the movement of the dangerous drug from
one place to another.

In the instant case, records established beyond any doubt that

accused-appellant Asislo was found in possession of the sacks
containing marijuana, and was arrested while in the act of
delivering or transporting such illegal drugs to Natividad, the
poseur-buyer, at the agreed place in Dontogan, Green Valley,
Baguio City, near a certain "car wash."

It is undisputed that Asislo, who was a farmer and a broom maker

at the time of his arrest, had no authority under the law to deliver
the marijuana, a dangerous drug.

In the case at bar, Asislo was found in possession of 110

kilograms of dried marijuana leaves contained in five sacks and a
plastic bag, and that his drug test yielded negative result. The
following circumstances strongly indicate that he has the intention
to sell, distribute, deliver or transport the said marijuana.

Based on the charges against Asislo and the evidence presented

by the prosecution, accused-appellant Asislo is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal delivery and transportation of
marijuana under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.

NOTE:
The prosecution successfully established the unbroken chain of
custody over the recovered marijuana, from the time the
apprehending officers seized the drugs, to the time it was brought
to the PDEA Office, then to the crime laboratory for testing, until
the time the same was offered in evidence before the court.