People v. Estrada GR# 164368-69, April 2, 2009, J. Brio !

A"#$: On April 4, 2001, an Information for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan against respondent Estrada, among other a used! A separate Information for illegal use of alias, was li"ewise filed against him! In the information, it was alleged that on or about 04 #ebruary 2000, in the $ity of %anila, then &resident Estrada without ha'ing been duly authori(ed, )udi ially or administrati'ely, ta"ing ad'antage of his position and ommitting the offense in relation to offi e, i!e!, in order to $O*$EA+ ,-E ill.gotten wealth -E A$/0I1E2 during his tenure and his true identity as ,-E &resident of the 1epubli of the &hilippines, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and riminally 1E&1ESE*, -I%SE+# AS 34OSE 5E+A12E6 I* SE5E1A+ ,1A*SA$,IO*S A*2 use and employ the SAI2 alias 74ose 5elarde8 whi h IS neither his registered name at birth nor his baptismal name, in signing do uments with E9uitable &$I :an" and;or other orporate entities! Estrada was subse9uently arrested on the basis of a warrant of arrest that the Sandiganbayan issued! A Spe ial 2i'ision in the Sandiganbayan was made to try, hear, and de ide the harges of plunder and related against respondent Estrada! At the trial, the &eople presented testimonial and do umentary e'iden e to pro'e the allegations of the Informations for plunder, illegal use of alias, and per)ury! After the &eople rested in all three ases, the defense mo'ed to be allowed to file a demurrer to e'iden e in these ases! In its 4oint 1esolution, the Sandiganbayan only granted the defense lea'e to file demurrers in illegal use of alias and per)ury! ,he Sandiganbayan ruled that the people failed to present e'iden e that pro'ed Estrada6s ommission of the offense! %$$&E: <hether the ourt a quo gra'ely erred and abused its dis retion in dismissing $rim! $ase *o! 2=>=> and in applying 1!A! *o! 140> as an e? eption to the illegal use of alias punishable under $ommonwealth A t *o! 142 'E(): *o! ,he Sandiganbayan position that the rule in the law of libel @ that mere communication to a third person is publicity @ does not apply to 'iolations of $A *o! 142! In order to be held liable for a 'iolation of $A *o! 142, the user of the alias must ha'e held himself out as a person who shall publi ly be "nown under that other name! In other words, the intent to publicly use the alias must be manifest! ,he presen e of +a 9uian and $hua when Estrada signed as 4ose 5elarde and opened ,rust A ount *o! $.1=A does not ne essarily indi ate his intention to be publi ly "nown hen eforth as 4ose 5elarde! ,hus, Estrada ould not be said to ha'e intended his signing as 4ose 5elarde to be for publi onsumption by the fa t alone that +a 9uian and $hua were also inside the room at that time! ,he same holds true for Estrada6s alleged

representations with Ortali(a and 2i ha'e(, assuming the e'iden e for these representations to be admissible! All of Estrada6s representations to these people were made in pri'a y and in se re y, with no iota of intention of publi ity! :an" deposits under 1!A! *o! 140> Bthe Se re y of :an" 2eposits +awC are statutorily prote ted or re ogni(ed (ones of pri'a y! Di'en the pri'ate nature of Estrada6s a t of signing the do uments as 74ose 5elarde8 related to the opening of the trust a ount, the &eople annot laim that there was already a publi use of alias when O ampo and $urato witnessed the signing! &etition was denied!

People v. &la*a GR# 186+30, )e,e*-er 14, 2011, J. (eo ardo-de "astro !A"#$: -a'ing re ei'ed onfidential information from an informant about the drug traffi "ing a ti'ities of appellant, :arangay $hairman 1odolfo 2oromal on'ened a group of %a"ati 2rug Abuse $oun il B%A2A$C operati'es to plan and arry out a buy.bust operation! ,he team pro eeded to the orner of 2apitan and San *i holas Streets, :arangay Duadalupe *ue'o, %a"ati $ity where a ording to the informant, appellant was ondu ting her illegal trade! %A2A$ operati'e Edison :ill was designated as poseur.buyer who "ept the mar"ed buy.bust money! After buying shabu from alias Ea"ay, they dis losed their identity as poli e offi er and %A2A$ operati'es and effe ted the arrest of appellant, 4errylyn :ernal y Ing o F 4ane and 1obert %er ado y ,aylo F 1obert! &O2 1odrigo Igno re o'ered from the left po "et of the short pants of appellant! %A2A$ operati'e Antonio :an(on sei(ed from the right hand of 1obert %er ado, three BAC small transparent plasti sa hets ontaining suspe ted shabu! +i"ewise, %A2A$ operati'e +eo Sese sei(ed three BAC sa hets ontaining suspe ted shabu from 4ane6s right hand when the latter tried to throw it away!0pon arrest, appellant and the two other a used were informed of the nature of their arrest as well as their onstitutional rights! ,he drug was later submitted to the &*& $rime +aboratory Offi e for appropriate e?amination! ,he suspe ts were also made to undergo drug test! Appellant pleaded 7not guilty8 to the harges when she was arraigned! ,he 1,$ on'i ted appellant of 'iolation of Se tion >, Arti le II of 1epubli A t *o! G1=> but, at the same time, a 9uitted her of the harge of 'iolation of Se tion 1>, Arti le II of the same statute! ,he appellant argues that the prose ution failed to establish the hain of ustody of the onfis ated items! -en e, this petition!

%$$&E: <O* the prose ution failed to establish the hain of ustody of the onfis ated items 'E(): *o! It is settled in )urispruden e that the elements ne essary for the prose ution of illegal sale of drugs are B1C the identities of the buyer and the seller, the ob)e t, and onsiderationH and B2C the deli'ery of the thing sold and the payment therefor! <hat is material to the prose ution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transa tion or sale a tually too" pla e, oupled with the presentation in ourt of e'iden e of corpus delicti! ,he re ords would indi ate that, immediately after appellant6s arrest and in her presen e, poseur.buyer :ill mar"ed the plasti sa het with the mar"ings 7*A0!8 ,his pie e of e'iden e was turned o'er dire tly to the 2rug Enfor ement 0nit B2E0C under the Offi e of the $riminal In'estigation 2i'ision of the %a"ati $ity &oli e Station where it was in luded in the items sub)e t to laboratory e?amination by the &*& $rime +aboratory! In the instant ase, no lear and on'in ing e'iden e to support the defense of frame.up was presented by appellant! *either did she put forward in her pleadings or testimony any imputation or proof of ill moti'e on the part of the arresting poli e offi ers!