G.R. No.

186528 January 26, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
HEMIANO DE JESUS and RODELO MORALES, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS:

The accused were charged with the crime of Murder before the RTC in Lipa City, Batangas, the
above-named accused, both armed with [a] small bolo (gulukan), conspiring and confederating
together, acting in common accord and mutually helping each other, with intent to kill, with treachery
and evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength and without any justifiable cause, did then
and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, hack and stab with the said small bolo
one Armando Arasula y de Torres, suddenly and without warning, thereby inflicting upon the latter
physical injuries on the different parts of his body which caused his instantaneous death. The
prosecution presented as its eyewitness Santiago Arasula, the younger brother of the victim,
Armando Arasula. Santiago testified that, on the evening of July 9, 1992, he, Armando, and the two
accused had been drinking at the birthday party of a certain Alejandro Hornillo, but he left earlier
than the others. Later, when Santiago was already at home with his wife and children, he heard
Armando shouting, "Mother, Mother, I was stabbed by Hemiano and Rodelo!" Santiago then ran
towards his brother, and saw him lying on the ground, with the accused still stabbing him with a
gulukan (small bolo). He ordered the two to stop, whereupon they ran away, heading north. When
Santiago reached his brother, he found that Armando was already dead. Rodelo Morales testified
that on July 9, 1992, he was at the house of Alejandro Hornillo to attend the latter’s birthday party,
and that he saw Hemiano de Jesus there as well. He stated that there was no bad blood between
him and the Arasula brothers, and denied having killed Armando. Hemiano de Jesus admitted
having killed the victim, but raised the justifying circumstance of self-defense. the trial court
rendered its Decision, finding both of the accused guilty. The CA found the testimony of Santiago
Arasula to be more credible and convincing, and thus upheld the RTC decision.

ISSUES: Whether or not the witness’ identification of the accused lacked credibility, considering the
circumstances that the area was dark and that Santiago was the only one to respond to the alleged
cries for help of the victim.19 They also attempted to show that the version of events posited by
accused-appellant de Jesus was more credible, that the killing was done in self-defense. Accused-
appellants further argued that, assuming arguendo that they committed the act of killing Armando
Arasula, the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of superior strength.

RULING: Santiago testified in a candid and straightforward manner, and the cross-examination
conducted by the defense failed to shake him. Santiago positively identified the men who killed his
brother, as he had known them for at least five years.
Santiago’s testimony was consistent and clear. Accused-appellants showed no reason or bias for
Santiago to pinpoint them as the perpetrators of the crime, no motive for the lone eyewitness to
falsely accuse them. Thus, We adhere to the established rule that in the absence of evidence
showing any reason or motive for the prosecution witness to perjure himself or herself, We can
conclude that no improper motive exists, and his or her testimony is worthy of full faith and
credit.29 We see no reason to deviate from the RTC’s appreciation of said testimony and the
conclusions drawn from it. Appellant’s denial and alibi are not worthy of belief. It is an oft-quoted
doctrine that positive identification prevails over denial and alibi. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. Furthermore, for the defense of alibi to
prosper, appellant must establish that (a) he was in another place at the time of the commission of
the offense; and (b) he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place
of the crime, or its immediate vicinity, at the time of its commission.

WHEREFORE, the CA Decision dated August 19, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02493 is
AFFIRMED

G.R. No. 191198 January 26, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
NENE QUIAMANLON y MALOG, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS: The said accused, conspiring, confederating with other person whose true name and
identity have not as yet been ascertained and mutually helping each other, not being authorized by
law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully
and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction,
ZERO POINT TWELVE (0.12 gm.) of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

When arraigned on August 25, 2005, accused Quiamanlon pleaded "not guilty" to the foregoing
accusations against her. During trial, the prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: Police
Officer 3 Jerry Villamor (PO3 Villamor), PO3 Noel Magcalayo (PO3 Magcalayo), and PO3 Hector
Hernandez (PO3 Hernandez).6 On the other hand, the defense presented Quiamanlon as its lone
witness. That she was arrested during a buy-bust operartion by the police.

Quiamanlon interposed the defense of denial. She testified that at 7:00 p.m. on June 15, 2005, she
was eating at Jollibee, Welcome Rotonda with Samula and the sister of her husband when,
suddenly, four men, who identified themselves as policemen, approached and poked their gun at her
and told her not to make any move. She was then brought to Camp Karingal aboard a black FX
vehicle. RTC and CA found her guilty of such crime/offense. The CA held that in the absence of
proof to suggest that the arresting officers were moved by improper motives, their testimonies are
entitled to full faith and credence.19 Moreover, the appellate court ruled that the chain of custody of
the seized prohibited drugs was shown not to have been broken and that the identity of the corpus
delicti had been properly preserved and established by the prosecution.

The Issues THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF

CONVICTION DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE

PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED
SHABU.

RULING: Time and again, this Court has held that factual findings of the appellate court affirming
those of the trial court are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings
are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error. Significantly, in the prosecution for
the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 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. It is worth noting that what is material to the prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled
with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.26
The foregoing elements were sufficiently established by the prosecution. PO3 Villamor, the poseur-
buyer, testified on the first element
With respect to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of RA
9165, the evidence of the prosecution has sufficiently established the elements of the violation, to
wit: (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.

Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession.
Thus, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or
animus possidendi.32 In the instant case, Quiamanlon failed to discharge such burden.

Contrary to Quiamanlon’s assertion, the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs was
adequately established in the instant case. Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to
be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been
tampered with.

A bare denial is an inherently weak defense44 and has been invariably viewed by this Court with
disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and is a common standard line of
defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.45 And in the absence of any intent
on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against the accused, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.

G.R. No. 192237 January 26, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JACQUILINE PAMBID y CORTEZ, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS: The said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or
distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver,
transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, ZERO POINT FOURTEEN (0.14) gram
of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Pambid was arraigned with the assistance of her counsel, and she pleaded not guilty to both
charges. That the said accuse was caught thru a confidential informant. In contrast, Pambid
interposed the defense of denial. She testified that on September 18, 2003, at around 5:30 p.m., she
was preparing milk for her two-year old child when she was arrested. The testimony of Parama is
corroborative of the story of Pambid. Likewise, San Jose testified that on September 18, 2003, at
about 5:00 p.m. in the afternoon, she was alone at home when she saw several men alight from a
vehicle, a Ford Fierra and arrested Pambid. RTC and CA found her guilty of such charges.

The Issues

The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the non-compliance with the
requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs as provided under R.A. No. 9165.

The trial court gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the prosecution’s evidence
notwithstanding its failure to prove the integrity and identity of the shabu allegedly seized.
The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant based solely on PO2 Michael
Collado’s testimony.
In addition, she assigns the following errors in her Supplemental Brief:
The Honorable Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in convicting the accused-appellant
despite non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs
under R.A. No. 9165.
The Honorable Court of Appeals gravely erred in giving full weight and credence to the prosecution’s
evidence notwithstanding its failure to prove the integrity of the seized drug.

RULING:
In the instant case, the chain of custody can be easily established through the following link: (1) PO2
Collado marked the seized sachets subject of the buy-bust with "MBC," his own initials; (2) a request
for laboratory examination of the seized items marked "MBC" was signed by C/Supt. Wong;27 (3) the
request and the marked items seized were received by the PNP Crime Laboratory; (4) Chemistry
Report No. D-1007-03 confirmed that the marked items seized from accused-appellant were
methylamphetamine hydrochloride;28 and (5) the marked items were offered in evidence as Exhibits
"B-1" and "B-2."29
Hence, it is clear that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. This
Court, therefore, finds no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court that the drugs seized from
accused-appellant were the same ones presented during trial. Accordingly, it is but logical to
conclude that the chain of custody of the illicit drugs seized from accused-appellant remains
unbroken, contrary to the assertions of accused-appellant.
Well-settled is the rule that "the testimony of a lone prosecution witness, as long as positive and
clear and not a result of improper motive to impute a serious offense against the accused, deserves
full faith and credit."30 It is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Essentially, all the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs have been sufficiently established,
i.e., (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.33 What is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place. 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. In this
case, the prosecution was able to establish these elements beyond moral certainty.

G.R. No. 187725 January 19, 2011

BENJAMIN JESALVA, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS: The above-named accused, with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength, with
treachery and evident premeditation with the use of motor vehicle and during night time, did then
and there [wilfully], unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault, manhandle and use personal violence
upon [Leticia] Aldemo, inflicting upon the latter serious and mortal wounds which directly caused her
death shortly thereafter, to the damage and prejudice of her legal heirs. In his relatively short stint
on the witness stand, petitioner denied that he killed Leticia. He testified that he did not have any
reason to kill her, and that he had many reasons why he should not kill her. RTC ruled in favor of
the prosecution, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence,
not of the crime of Murder, but of Homicide. The RTC ratiocinated that, in the absence of any direct
evidence or testimonies of eyewitnesses, treachery was not established, and that evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength were not duly proven. CA find that the prosecution’s
evidence suffice to sustain the accused-appellant’s conviction for homicide.
ISSUES: A) THE COURT OF APPEALS AND RTC DECISIONS CONVICTING PETITIONER OF
THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE BASED ON PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WERE BOTH
NOT IN ACCORD WITH ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE REQUIRING THAT SUCH BE ACTED
WITH CAUTION AND THAT ALL THE ESSENTIAL FACTS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
HYPOTHESIS OF GUILT; AND
B) THE COURT OF APPEALS, AS WELL AS THE TRIAL COURT, SERIOUSLY ERRED IN
RULING THAT STATEMENTS MADE BY PETITIONER IN THE POLICE STATION WERE
ADMISSIBLE AS HE WAS THEN NOT UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION DESPITE
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DETAINED BY THE
POLICE HAD HIS FISCAL-COMPANION NOT [TAKEN] HIM UNDER HIS CUSTODY.
RULING: The assailed statements herein were spontaneously made by petitioner and were not at
all elicited through questioning. It was established that petitioner, together with his cousin Fiscal
Jayona, personally went to the police station and voluntarily made the statement that Leticia jumped
out of his vehicle at around 12:30 a.m. of September 9, 1992.41 The RTC and the CA did not,
therefore, err in holding that the constitutional procedure for custodial investigation is not applicable
in the instant case. There can be a verdict of conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the
circumstances proved form an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion
pinpointing the accused, to the exclusion of all the others, as the perpetrator of the crime. However,
in order that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to convict, the same must comply with these
essential requisites, viz.: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner’s mere denial cannot outweigh the
circumstantial evidence clearly establishing his culpability in the crime charged. It is well-settled that
the positive declarations of a prosecution witness prevail over the bare denials of an accused.

G.R. No. 178039 January 19, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
ERNESTO UYBOCO y RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
FACTS: The above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap, carry away and detain the minor,
JESON KEVIN DICHAVES, five (5) years old, against his will and consent, thus depriving him of his
liberty, for the purpose of extorting ransom for his release, which after payment thereof in the
amount of P1,320,000.00 in cash and P175,000.00 worth of assorted jewelry, including a Colt .45
Caliber Pistol with SN 14836 or a total of ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P1,500,000.00) was divided by said accused between and/or among themselves to the damage
and prejudice of the aforementioned victim/or his parents. RTC rendered judgment finding appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping for ransom, CA affirmed such decision.

ISSUES: W/N the appellant’s guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING: The facts were based on the narrations of the prosecution’s witnesses, particularly that of
Nimfa, the victim herself and Jepson, the father of the two children abducted and the person from
whom ransom was extorted. The rule is that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses on minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration,
their veracity or the weight of their testimonies. The inconsistencies and discrepancies of the
testimonies, in the case at bar, are not of such nature as would warrant the reversal of the decision
appealed from. On the contrary, such trivial inconsistencies strengthen, rather than diminish, Celiz’
testimony as they erase suspicion that the same was rehearsed. The testimonies of Nimfa and
Jepson sufficiently point to the participation of appellant. While he was not present during the
abduction, he was present in the house where the victims were detained, oftentimes giving the
phone to Nimfa to talk to Jepson. He also actively demanded ransom from Jepson. The conspiracy
was likewise proven by the above testimonies. Appellant conspired with Macias and other John
Does in committing the crime. Therefore, even with the absence of appellant in the abduction stage,
he is still liable for kidnapping for ransom because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all.

G.R. No. 185715 January 19, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
ERLINDA CAPUNO y TISON, Appellant.
FACTS: The above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another, one (1) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet of white crystalline substance weighing 0.04 gram which was found positive to the test
for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and which substance produces a
physiological action similar to amphetamine or other compound thereof providing similar
physiological effects.

The police brought the appellant to the police station and asked the duty officer to blotter the
incident. Afterwards, they brought the appellant to the police investigator; they also made a request
for a laboratory examination. The appellant denied that she had been selling illegal drugs. She
explained that she consented to the search because she believed that the two persons who entered
her house were policemen.

ISSUE: W/N The lower courts erred in convicting her of the crime charged despite the
prosecution’s failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant likewise contends that the prosecution failed to show an unbroken chain of custody in
the handling of the seized specimen. She claims that the apprehending team did not mark the seized
items upon confiscation. Moreover, there was no showing that the police inventoried or
photographed the seized items in her presence or her counsel, a representative of the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public officials.

RULING: After due consideration, we resolve to acquit the appellant for the prosecution’s failure to
prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The procedure, was not shown to have been complied with
by the members of the buy-bust team, and nothing on record suggests that they had extended
reasonable efforts to comply with the said statutory requirement in handling the evidence. No
physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were taken in the presence of the appellant or
her counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and an elective official. The Court
remained vigilant in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs were
observed after the passage of R.A. No. 9165. the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any
justification for its failure to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized items.

All told, we find merit in the appellant's claim that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of
proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, due to the unreliability of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses and substantial gaps in the chain of custody, raising reasonable doubt on the
authenticity of the corpus delicti.
1avvphi1

G.R. No. 185163 January 17, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CARLO MAGNO AURE y ARNALDO and MELCHOR AUSTRIACO y AGUILA, Accused-
Appellants.

FACTS: The above-named accused, conspiring and confederating and both of them mutually
helping and aiding with one another, without the necessary license or prescription and without being
authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, and give away
P6,000.00 worth of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) weighing three point ninety-one
(3.91) grams, a dangerous drug. Aure and Austriaco interposed the defense of denial.

ISSUES: The court A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE
CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF the PROSECUTION TO PROVE their
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

RULING: Court is guided by the legal aphorism that factual findings of the CA, affirming those of the
trial court, are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted
with arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error. Here, accused-appellants failed to show any
palpable error, arbitrariness, or oversight on the findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts as to
warrant a review of such findings. A bare denial is an inherently weak defense,41 and has been
1avvphi1

invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted but difficult to prove, and
is a common standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of RA 9165.
Considering the foregoing disquisitions, We uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty and find that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the guilt of
accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

G.R. No. 189806 January 12, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
FRANCISCO MANLANGIT y TRESBALLES, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS: The above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there
willfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver zero point zero four (0.04) gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug, not being authorized by law
to use dangerous drugs, and having been arrested and found positive for use of
Methylamphetamine, after a confirmatory test, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
use Methylamphetamine, a dangerous drug in violation of the said law. Manlangit denied that such
buy-bust operation was conducted and claimed that the recovered shabu was not from him. He
claimed that he was pointed out by a certain Eli Ballesteros to Serrano and Bayona. Thereafter, he
was allegedly detained at the Barangay Hall of Brgy. Pitogo. There, he was allegedly interrogated by
Serrano as to the location of the shabu and its proceeds, as well as the identity of the drug pushers
in the area. He also claimed that whenever he answered that he did not know what Serrano was
talking about, he was boxed in the chest. Later on, he said that he was brought to Camp Crame for
drug testing.

ISSUES: 1. The Court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the
prosecution’s failure to prove his built beyond reasonable doubt.9
2. The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the procedure for the custody and control of
prohibited drugs was complied with.10
RULING:

The pieces of evidence found in the records amply demonstrate that all the elements of the crimes
charged were satisfied. The lower courts gave credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies,
which established the guilt of accused-appellant for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt.
The testimonies––particularly those of the police officers involved, which both the RTC and the CA
found credible––are now beyond question. Moreover, accused-appellant’s defense of denial,
without substantial evidence to support it, cannot overcome the presumption of regularity of the
police officers’ performance of official functions. The failure of the prosecution to show that the
police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated
pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant’s arrest
illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. To be admissible, the prosecution must
show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it
came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition up to the time it was offered in evidence.

G.R. No. 175330 January 12, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
RODOLFO CAPITLE and ARTURO NAGARES, Appellants.
FACTS: Barangay Chairman Avelino Pagalunan was gunned down by four (4) men who thereafter
ran towards Shaw Blvd. The incident was witnessed by Ruiz Constantino and Solomon Molino who
were seated six (6) arms length away and conversing on the flower pots planted with bougainvilla
lined along Orambo Drive corner St. Jude Street, Orambo, Pasig City. Barangay Chairman Avelino
Pagalunan was thereafter brought to Medical City Hospital where he expired due to multiple gunshot
wounds in the body, in the neck and in the head. The most fatal wound was the one sustained in the
head. Solomon Molino, a Barangay Kagawad, gave his statement to the District Central Investigation
Branch, Eastern Police District Command relating the incident he saw but failed to identify the
assailants. Arturo Nagares was identified to be the assailant. In Nagares’ extrajudicial confession, he
implicated Vice Mayor Anching De Guzman as the mastermind, and Rodolfo Capitle a.k.a. Putol,
Elymar Santos and a John Doe as his cohorts in the killing of the Barangay Chairman. Many
witnesses identified him as one of the aasailant. Accused Arturo Nagares offered alibi as a defense.
He was sleeping at the house of his sister Gaudelia Mercado, as he was suffering from fever due to
boil ("pigsa") at the right leg, he said. This testimony found corroboration from his sister, Gaudelia,
and even narrated she accompanied Arturo to the Rizal Medical Center where he was treated and
given medication by a certain Dr. Ong. As to the extrajudicial confession, Nagares claimed that he
was violated, forced, coerced and tortured into admitting the crime, and to sign the already prepared
extrajudicial confession. After trial, the trial court rendered a Decision dated 28 April 2000 finding
appellants guilty as charged, while acquitting Ramil Marquina. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The Issues
1. WHETHER THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF APPELLANTS WERE VIOLATED
THEREBY RENDERING THE EVIDENCE PURPORTEDLY OBTAINED THROUGH SAID
VIOLATION AS NULL AND VOID.
2. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF
APPELLANTS BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
Ruling: Nagares challenges the admissibility of his extrajudicial confession, claiming that it was
made under duress and that he was not assisted by an independent counsel during the custodial
investigation. Nagares’ extrajudicial confession was voluntarily given, and thus admissible. As found
by the Court of Appeals, (1) there is no evidence of compulsion or duress or violence on the person
of Nagares; (2) Nagares did not complain to the officers administering the oath during the taking of
his sworn statement; (3) he did not file any criminal or administrative complaint against his alleged
malefactors for maltreatment; (4) no marks of violence were observed on his body; and (5) he did
not have himself examined by a physician to support his claim. Moreover, appellant’s confession is
replete with details, which makes it highly improbable that it was not voluntarily given. Nagares was
duly assisted by an effective and independent counsel during the custodial investigation in the NBI.
Moreover, Nagares’ extrajudicial confession was corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. Further,
settled is the rule that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is generally accorded
great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal since the trial court was in a better position to
decide thereon, having personally heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying during the trial. Well-entrenched is the rule that alibi, which is inherently weak, cannot
prevail over the positive identification made by the eyewitnesses at the crime scene.
Hence, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the combination of circumstances
must be interwoven in such a way as to leave no reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.19
Based on Paat’s testimony, there is sufficient circumstantial evidence justifying Capitle’s
conviction. There is more than one circumstance: (1) the victim was gunned down at the corner of
lavvphil

Orambo Drive and St. Jude St., Mandaluyong City; (2) Paat heard several gunshots coming from
that area; (3) Paat saw four men, including Nagares and Capitle, coming from the corner of Orambo
Drive and St. Jude St. and running away towards Shaw Blvd.; (4) the four men, including Nagares
and Capitle, were all carrying guns; and (5) prosecution witness Constantino saw Nagares, together
with several other men, shot the victim. To the unprejudiced mind, the foregoing circumstances,
when analyzed and taken together, leads to no other conclusion except that of appellants’ culpability
for the victim’s death.

G.R. No. 190640 January 12, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
LUIS PAJARIN y DELA CRUZ and EFREN PALLAYA y TUVIERA, Appellants.
FACTS: Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya. were caught in a buy bust operation by the police, selling
shabu. Both the accussed denied the allegation against them. RTC found both accused guilty of
the crime charged and imposed on them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00.
CA affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUES: 1. Whether or not the CA erred in not excluding the evidence of the seized shabu on the
ground that the prosecution failed to prove their integrity by establishing the chain of custody of the
same until they got to the trial court; and
2. Whether or not for this reason the CA erred in affirming their conviction.
RULING:
The Court has held in numerous cases that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure laid
down in R.A. 9165 would not render void the seizure of the prohibited substance for as long as the
apprehending officers give justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct1 and show that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the confiscated items had not been compromised. The marking of captured
items immediately after they are seized from the accused is the starting point in the custodial link.
This step is vital because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.
Failure to place such markings paves the way for swapping, planting, and contamination of the
evidence.4 These lapses seriously cast doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, warranting
acquittal on reasonable doubt.5
Trial courts should order the case dismissed and the accused released from detention if on
examination the supporting documents are wanting in this respect. They should not waste their
precious time to useless exercise where the police and the prosecution fail to observe the rule of law
especially in so serious offenses.

G.R. No. 184954 January 10, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
JAY LORENA y LABAG, Appellant.
FACTS: The above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, criminally and
knowingly sell Methamphetamine Hydrocholoride, with a total weight of 0.21 gram[,] a dangerous
drug, contained in a plastic sachet, to a poseur[-]buyer, without authority of law, and one (1) Five
Hundred Peso bill with serial number MS [979614]4 was confiscated from the accused, to the
damage and prejudice of the People of the Philippines. When arraigned, appellant pleaded not
guilty.