DATE

February 10, 2009

2009 DRUGS CASES

CASES
VIOLATION
DOCTRINE
PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Sections 5 and In People v. Cueno, the failure to present the marked money in evidence is not
PHILIPPINES vs.
11, Article II of Republic indispensable for the conviction of the accused, as long as the sale can be
WILFREDO
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the adequately proved in some other way by the prosecution. The production of the
ENCILA Y SUNGA
Comprehensive Dangerous marked money recovered from the possession of accused-appellant further
G.R. No. 182419
strengthened the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that a buy-bust operation
Drugs Act of 2002
was conducted. (359 Phil. 151, 162 (1998))
The defense did not adduce any evidence that could have shown that the policemen
deviated from the regular performance of their duty and that could have overcome
this presumption. Neither did the defense interpose any evidence to show that said
police officers were not performing their duty properly when the buy-bust
operation was conducted. When the police officers involved in the buy-bust
operation have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, the courts shall
uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. (People v.
Villanueva, G.R. No. 172116, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 280, 288)
And unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary suggesting ill
motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance
of their duties, their testimonies with respect to the operation deserve full faith and
credit. (People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569, 28 November 2007, 539 SCRA
306, 317)
The presumption in favor of the prosecution witnesses, who are all police officers,
taken together with the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution
against the accused, should therefore stand.

February 25, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Section 5,

PHILIPPINES vs.
Article II of Republic Act
RUIZ GARCIA y
(R.A.) No. 9165
RUIZ
G.R. No. 173480

CONVICTED
A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has
been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are
otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant
downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is
susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for
extortion. (People v. Jocson, G.R. No. 169875, December 18, 2007, 540 SCRA 585,
592)
In People v. Tan, this Court itself recognized that by the very nature of anti-

narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady
characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of
heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and
the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great.
Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an
innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.
Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have
been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly follow. The
prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have been followed in
proving the elements of the defined offense. (G.R. No. 133001, December 14,
2000, 348 SCRA 116, 126-127, citing People v. Gireng, 241 SCRA 11 (1995) and
People v. Pagaura, 267 SCRA 17 (1997))

April 7, 2009

SUSAN SALES Y Violation of Section 5,

JIMENA vs.
Article II of Republic Act
PEOPLE OF THE
(R.A.) No. 9165
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 182296

ACQUITTED
In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of all
dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very
corpus delicti of the crime of violation of the said Act. (People v. Kimura, G.R. No.
130805, April 27, 2004, 428 SCRA 51, 61, citing People v. Mendiola, 235 SCRA
116, 120. See also People of the Philippines v. Salvador Sanchez y Espiritu, G.R.
No. 175832, October 15, 2008)
It is thus essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the
suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity
of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to
make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody requirement performs this function
in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed. (Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619,
632)

April 24, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Sections 5 and

PHILIPPINES vs.
11, Article II of Republic
RUBEN ROBLES y
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
NOVILINIO
Comprehensive Dangerous
G.R. No. 177220
Drugs Act of 2002

ACQUITTED
The Court notes further that nothing on record shows compliance by the buy-bust
team with the procedural requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 with respect to custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. There
was no physical inventory and photograph of the items allegedly confiscated from
appellant. There was likewise no explanation offered for the failure to observe the
rule.

The failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized
drugs raises doubt as to their origins, (Vide People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July
31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 758) and negates the operation of the presumption of
regularity accorded to police officers. (People v. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593,
October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 489, 505)

June 22, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Sections 5 and

PHILIPPINES vs.
11, Article II of Republic
FREDERICK
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
RICHIE TEODORO
Comprehensive Dangerous
G.R. No. 185164
Drugs Act of 2002

ACQUITTED
Non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the
items seized or 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 this case, it has been shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items had been preserved. Thus, appellants claim must fail. (People of
the Philippines v. Marilyn Naquita, supra note 23; People v. Del Monte, G.R. No.
179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 636; People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928,
August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843)
Apart from his defense that he is a victim of a frame-up and extortion by the police
officers, accused-appellant could not present any other viable defense. While the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement
agents should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence, for the claim
of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able to present clear and convincing
evidence to overcome this presumption of regularity. (People of the Philippines v.
Narciso Agulay y Lopez, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008)
In People v. Mateo (People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179036, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA
375, 395) and People v. Larry Lopez (People of the Philippines v. Larry Lopez,
G.R. No. 181441, November 14, 2008), the Court held that the period of
imprisonment imposed on the accused should not be a straight penalty, but should
be an indeterminate penalty.
Drug addiction is one of the most pernicious evils that has ever crept into our
society. More often than not, it is the young who are the victims. On the other
hand, equally reprehensible is the police practice of using the law as a tool for
extorting money from hapless victims. Courts must be vigilant in trying drug
charges, lest an innocent person be made to suffer the unusually severe penalties
for drug offenses. (People v. Yuan, 466 Phil 791, 807-808 (2004))

July 23, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Section 5,

PHILIPPINES vs.
Article II of Republic Act
ELSIE BARBA y
(R.A.) No. 9165
BIAZON
G.R. No. 182420

CONVICTED
The essential elements in a prosecution for sale of illegal drugs are: (1) the
identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. (People v. Naquita, G.R. No.
180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 449; citing People v. Adam, 459 Phil. 676,
684 (2003))
The prohibited drug is an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime of
possession or selling of regulated/prohibited drug; proof of its identity, existence,
and presentation in court are crucial. (People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October
15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194).
A conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the
drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty.
Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that
the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance
offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of
certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. (People v. Cervantes, G.R. No.
181494, March 17, 2009)
The identity of the subject substance is established by showing the chain of
custody. In Espinoza v. State, an adequate foundation establishing a continuous
chain of custody is said to have been established if the State accounts for the
evidence at each stage from its acquisition to its testing, and to its introduction at
trial. (859 N.E.2d 375, December 27, 2006)
In a prosecution for sale of illegal drugs, this foundation takes more significance
because of the nature of the evidence involved. (Malillin v. People, G.R. No.
172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 633)
The more fungible the evidence, the more significant its condition, or the higher its
susceptibility to change, the more elaborate the foundation must be. In those
circumstances, it must be shown that there has been no tampering, alteration, or
substitution. (23 C.J.S. Criminal Law 1142)
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.

In People v. Sanchez, the accused was acquitted since the prosecution did not make
known the identities of the police officers to whom custody of the seized drugs was
entrusted after the buy-bust operation. Likewise absent from the evidence is any
testimony on the whereabouts of the drugs after they were analyzed by the forensic
chemist.
In People v. Garcia, the conviction was overturned due in part to the failure of the
state to show who delivered the drugs to the forensic laboratory and who had
custody of them after their examination by the forensic chemist and pending their
presentation in court. (G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009)
In People v. Cervantes, a total of five (5) links in the chain of custody were not
presented in court: the desk officer who received the drugs at the police station; the
unnamed person who delivered the drugs to the forensic laboratory; the recipient of
the drugs at the forensic laboratory; the forensic chemist who did the examination
of the drugs; and the person who acted as custodian of the drugs after their
analysis. Although the non-presentation of some of the witnesses who can attest to
an unbroken chain of evidence may in some instances be excused, there should be
a justifying factor for the prosecution to dispense with their testimonies.

August 14, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Sections 5 and

PHILIPPINES vs.
11, Article II of Republic
MARIAN
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
CORECHE
y
Comprehensive Dangerous
CABER
Drugs Act of 2002
G.R. No. 182528

ACQUITTED
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other
related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after
seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized
contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens
will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate
the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from
the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of
criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or contamination of
evidence.

Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure
of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on
the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties, the doctrinal fallback of every drugrelated prosecution. Thus, in People v. Laxa and People v. Casimiro, we held that
the failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused
casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.
These rulings are refinements of our holdings in People v. Mapa and People v.
Dismuke that doubts on the authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by the
prosecutions failure to prove that the evidence submitted for chemical analysis is
the same as the one seized from the accused suffice to warrant acquittal on
reasonable doubt.
In sustaining the prosecutions case, the lower courts inevitably relied on the
evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. This
presumption, it must be emphasized, is not conclusive. Not only is it rebutted by
contrary proof, as here, but it is also inferior (People v. Caete, 433 Phil. 781
(2002)) to the constitutional presumption of innocence.
All told, the Supreme Court finds merit in appellants claim that the prosecution
failed to discharge its burden of proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to
substantial gaps in the chain of custody, raising reasonable doubt on the
authenticity of the corpus delicti.

August 27, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Section 8,

PHILIPPINES vs.
Article II of Republic Act
RANDY
(R.A.) No. 6425
MAGBANUA alias
BOYUNG and
WILSON
MAGBANUA

ACQUITTED
Under this Section, the mere possession of any prohibited drug consummates the
crime. The charge of illegal possession of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable
doubt as it was found at the back seat of the car with accused-appellants, without
legal authority. The four (4) bricks of dried suspected marijuana found in the
accused-appellants possession, upon laboratory examination, were positively
identified as marijuana, a prohibited drug.
As long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items,
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, the failure to issue a
receipt will not render the items seized/confiscated inadmissible as evidence. As
held by the Court in People v. Alvin Pringas, 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.
Here, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the items involved were
safeguarded. The seized drugs were immediately marked for proper identification.
Thereafter, they were forwarded to the Crime Laboratory for examination.

September 4, 2009

GILBERT
ZALAMEDA vs.
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 183656

Violation of Section 11,

Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002

Well-settled is the rule that prosecutions involving the possession of illegal drugs
depend largely on the credibility of the police officer. This Court has access only to
the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings. Thus, the Court relies heavily
on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly when there are conflicts in
the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the trial court which had the unique
opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct, and manner while testifying.
Hence, its factual findings are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing
that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have
been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. (People v. Chen Tiz Chang and
Cheng Jung San a.k.a. Willy Tan, G.R. Nos. 131872-73, February 17, 2000, 325
SCRA 776, 778)
CONVICTED
The settled rule is that the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is
not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution
because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative. (See People
v. Lopez, G.R. No. 172369, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 749) Moreover, informants
are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identities and
preserve their invaluable service to the police. (See Dimacuha v. People, G.R. No.
143705, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 513)
Thus, we held in People v. Boco: (G.R. No. 129676, June 23, 1999, 309 SCRA 42)
Under the circumstances, we do not find any necessity for additional corroborating
testimony, particularly that of the confidential informant. Intelligence agents, due to
the nature of their work, are often not called to testify in court so as not to reveal
their identities publicly. Once known, they could no longer be used again and,
worse, may be the object of revenge by the criminals they implicate. The prevailing
doctrine is that their testimonies are not essential for conviction, nor are they
indispensable to a successful prosecution. With the testimonies of the arresting
officers, they would be, after all, merely corroborative and cumulative.

October 2, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs.
ROSEMARIE R.
SALONGA

Violation of Section 5 of
Article II of Republic Act
No. (RA) 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002

CONVICTED
While a lone witness testimony is sufficient to convict an accused, it must be
credible and believable, qualities we cannot ascribe to this case. Major lapses were
not explained, raising doubts as to the preservation of the integrity of the evidence.
The varying reasons the prosecution proffered as to why there was a departure from
the procedure found in RA 9165 do not, to our mind, justify the buy-bust teams
non-compliance. We are not ready to affirm a conviction in the face of such flimsy
and contradictory excuses for why the evidence was improperly handled. As this
Court recently observed in People v. Robles (G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009), the
failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs
raises doubt as to their origins, and negates the operation of the presumption of
regularity accorded to police officers.
To emphasize the importance of the corpus delicti in drug charges, we have held
that it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect
is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said
drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a
finding of guilt. (Sales v. People, G.R. No. 182296, April 7, 2009) This requirement
is found wanting in this case. With the buy-bust teams unwarranted noncompliance with the chain of custody procedure, we are unable to say with
certainty that the identity of the seized drugs is intact and its evidentiary value
undiminished. For this reason, we find that the prosecution has not been able to
prove the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The weakness of
accused-appellants defense is no longer material as the prosecution was not able to
overcome the presumption of innocence accused-appellant enjoys.

October 2, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs.
LEONARD L.
BERNARDINO
alias ONAT

Violation of 15 and 16,

Article III of Republic Act
No. 6425

ACQUITTED
Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or
control of the accused. In this case, the drugs were found inside his clothing. No
evidence was ever adduced showing that the accused-appellant had authority to
possess these regulated drugs.
Lastly, the surrounding circumstances indicate the accused-appellants knowledge
of the drugs in his possession. Knowledge, being an internal act, may be presumed
from the failure of the accused to explain why the drug was in a place over which
the accused exercised dominion and control. In this case, such explanation was

glaringly lacking. The only explanation offered police frame-up is, as

discussed, a discredited one. Hence, knowing possession of the shabu by the
accused-appellant is presumed under the circumstances. (People v. Tira, G.R. No.
139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134)

October 16, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Sections 5, 11,

PHILIPPINES vs.
and 15, Article II of
ALFREDO
Republic Act No. 9165,
LAZARO, JR. a.k.a
otherwise known as the
JUN LAZARO y
Comprehensive Dangerous
AQUINO,
Drugs Act of 2002

CONVICTED
Not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify
in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the
same that imposes such a requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the
seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the
prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable
that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the
witness stand. (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, 18 June 2009)
In People v. Zeng Hua Dian, (G.R. No. 145348, 14 June 2004, 432 SCRA 25, 32)
the Supreme Court ruled:
After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of
custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail
to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses
of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the
officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of
presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The
prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to
choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.

December 16, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs.
DANILO CRUZ y
CULALA
G.R. No. 185381

CONVICTED
Denial and frame-up as defenses are inherently weak and have always been viewed
by the Court with disfavor, for they can easily be invented and these are common
defenses in most prosecutions for violations of RA 9165. (People v. Dulay, G.R.
No. 150624, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 652, 662)
Thus, in order for the Court to appreciate these defenses, there must be such clear
and convincing evidence to prove such defenses; otherwise, in the absence of any
ill motive on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against
appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands.

There is no denying the fact that dealing in illegal drugs has brought untold
miseries to many members of our society. It has caused tremendous sufferings and
difficulties not only to drug users but to their families as well. It has ruined the
future of the youths who have succumbed to its promise of momentary bliss only to
lose opportunities to lead meaningful and productive lives later.
In fighting the drug menace in our midst, we should not be hindered by
technicalities that those engaged in the trade claim were committed by authorities
in curtailing their activities. The ill effects of their trade far outweigh any
consideration police officers may have in trying to put a stop to its spread.
CONVICTED
2010 DRUGS CASES
DATE
January 22, 2010

January 25, 2010

CASES
VIOLATION
JULIUS CACAO y Violation of Section 11,
PRIETO vs.
Article II of Republic Act
PEOPLE OF THE
(RA) No. 9165 (The
PHILIPPINES
Comprehensive Dangerous
G.R. No. 180870
Drugs Act of 2002)

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Sections 5 and

PHILIPPINES vs.
11, Article II of Republic
RODANTE
DE
Act No. (RA) 9165 or the
LEON y DELA
Comprehensive Dangerous
ROSA
Drugs Act of 2002
G.R. No. 186471

DOCTRINE
It must be stressed that the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the
drug itself. This means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the
prohibited drug is essential. (People v. Quebral, G.R. No. 185379, November 27,
2009)
Likewise, our ruling in People v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009)
on chain of custody rule is instructive. Thus:
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires the
presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. This would ideally cover the testimony about every link in the
chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in
such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the
condition in which it was delivered to the next in the chain.
ACQUITTED
Here, appellant was caught in actual possession of the prohibited drugs without
showing any proof that he was duly authorized by law to possess them. Having
been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facie evidence of animus possidendi
on appellants part. As held by this Court, the finding of a dangerous drug in the
house or within the premises of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence of
knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in the absence of a
satisfactory explanation. (U.S. v. Bandoc, 23 Phil. 14, 15 (1912)) In the case at bar,

appellant failed to present any evidence to rebut his animus possidendi of the shabu
found in his pocket during the buy-bust operation.

February 9, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Section 5,

PHILIPPINES vs.
Article II of Republic Act
FERNANDO
(R.A.) No. 9165
VILLAMIN Y SAN
JOSE
ALIAS
ANDOY

CONVICTED
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police
officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. It is a fundamental rule that
findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve
credibility, are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of
facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from
such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to
decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed
their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even
more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of
Appeals. (People v. Saidamen Macatingag)
Accused-appellant, during his testimony and in his Appellant's Brief, merely denied
the charge against him. According to him, he was just having breakfast when the
members of the buy-bust team suddenly barged inside the house and arrested him.
Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellants plain
denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing
evidence, must simply fail. Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution
by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it
is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have
performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. Unfortunately, the accusedappellant miserably failed to present any evidence that the members of the buy-bust
operation team did not properly perform their duty, or that the entire operation was
coupled with any improper motive. (People v. del Monte, G. R. No. 179940, April
23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627)
As an added argument, the accused-appellant questions the legality of his arrest.
He claims that he was not given the opportunity to know the reason for his arrest,
and that the arresting officers were not armed with any warrant for arrest. This
Court, however, finds the said argument to be preposterous. It must be
remembered that the accused-appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation, the
main goal of which was to catch him in flagrante selling shabu, and from the

evidence for the prosecution, he was arrested while committing a crime -- peddling
of illegal drugs, a circumstance where warrantless arrest is justified under Rule
113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court.

March 5, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Sections 5 and

PHILIPPINES vs.
11, Article II of Republic
FERNANDO
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
HABANA
y
Comprehensive Dangerous
ORANTE
Drugs Act of 2002
G.R. No. 188900

CONVICTED
The chain of custody rule requires that testimony be presented about every link in
the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered in
evidence. To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the substance presented in
court is the same substance seized from the accused.
While this Court recognizes substantial adherence to the requirements of R.A. 9165
and its implementing rules and regulations, not perfect adherence, is what is
demanded of police officers attending to drugs cases, still, such officers must
present justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. Here, however, they
failed to meet these conditions. The police officers offered no explanation for their
failure to observe the chain of custody rule. (People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011,
December 23, 2009)
The prosecution failed to show how the seized items changed hands, from when the
police officers seized them from Habana to the time they were presented in court as
evidence. PO1 Paras said that he turned over the sachets of shabu to the
investigator on duty. But the prosecution did not adduce evidence on what the
investigator on duty did with the seized articles, how these got to the laboratory
technician, and how they were kept before being adduced in evidence at the trial.
Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a
supervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the police crime
laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance
changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the
substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic container and seal the
same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear
on the plastic container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized
substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches the
crime laboratory.
If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and seal

the same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach the laboratory in the
same condition it was seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory
technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he should
put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a new seal since the
police officers seal has been broken. At the trial, the technician can then describe
the sealed condition of the plastic container when it was handed to him and testify
on the procedure he took afterwards to preserve its integrity.
If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would
have to present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage
personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly ones possession has
been. Each of them has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not
been tampered with or substituted while in his care.

May 14, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Sections 15 and

PHILIPPINES vs.
16 of Republic Act No.
NORMAN SITCO
(RA)
6425
or
The
and RAYMUNDO
Dangerous Drugs Act of
BAGTAS
1972
(deceased)
G.R. No. 178202

Since the failure in this case to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized
drugs compromised the identity and integrity of the items seized, which is the
corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against Habana, his acquittal is in order
Although the non-presentation of some of the witnesses who can attest to an
unbroken chain of custody of evidence may, in some instances, be excused, there
should be a justifying factor for the prosecution to dispense with their testimonies.
(People v. Barba, G.R. No. 182420, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 711, 719; citing
People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762) In People
v. Denoman, (G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257) the Court
discussed the saving mechanism provided by Sec. 21(a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. Denoman explains that the
aforementioned provision contains a saving mechanism to ensure that not every
case of non-compliance will permanently prejudice the prosecutions case. The
saving mechanism applies when the prosecution recognizes and explains the lapse
or lapses in the prescribed procedures. (People v. Denoman, supra note 28, at 270)
In this case, the prosecution did not even acknowledge and discuss the reasons for
the missing links in the chain.
To reiterate, in prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the substance itself
constitutes the key part of the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its
existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
(Catuiran v. People, G.R. No. 175647, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 567) Taken with the
uncorroborated testimony of Buan, the broken chain of custody over the marijuana

and shabu in the instant case creates reasonable doubt on accused-appellants guilt.
In a string of cases, we declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the
testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of
a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the
evidence before it was finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with every
proposition relative to the culpability of the accused.
As in People v. Partoza, this case suffers from the failure of the prosecution witness
to provide the details establishing an unbroken chain of custody. In Partoza, the
police officer testifying did not relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned
over. The evidence of the prosecution likewise did not disclose the identity of the
person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and
pending presentation in court. (G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 809)

June 16, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Sections 5 and

PHILIPPINES vs.
11, Article II of Republic
BELEN
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
MARIACOS
Comprehensive Dangerous
G.R. No. 188611
Drugs Act of 2002

ACQUITTED
It is admitted that there were no photographs taken of the drugs seized, that
appellant was not accompanied by counsel, and that no representative from the
media and the DOJ were present. However, this Court has already previously held
that non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an accuseds
arrest illegal, or make the items seized inadmissible. What is of utmost importance
is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
(People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 436-437,
citing People v. Del Monte, 552 SCRA 627 (2008))
While it is true that the arresting officer failed to state explicitly the justifiable
ground for non-compliance with Section 21, this does not necessarily mean that
appellants arrest was illegal or that the items seized are inadmissible. The
justifiable ground will remain unknown because appellant did not question the
custody and disposition of the items taken from her during the trial. (See People v.
Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828; People v. Sta. Maria,
G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 633)
Even assuming that the police officers failed to abide by Section 21, appellant
should have raised this issue before the trial court. She could have moved for the
quashal of the information at the first instance. But she did not. Hence, she is
deemed to have waived any objection on the matter.

Further, the actions of the police officers, in relation to the procedural rules on the
chain of custody, enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official functions. Courts accord credence and full faith to the testimonies of police
authorities, as they are presumed to be performing their duties regularly, absent any
convincing proof to the contrary. (People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 175326, November
28, 2007, 539 SCRA 198, 223)

July 6, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violations of Sections 5 and

PHILIPPINES vs.
11, Article II of Republic
NOEL CATENTAY
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
G.R. No. 183101
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002

August 12, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Section 5,

PHILIPPINES vs.
Article II of Republic Act
FELIMON
(R.A.) No. 9165
PAGADUAN
y
TAMAYO
G.R. No. 179029

August 25, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Section 5,

PHILIPPINES vs.
Article II of Republic Act
FEDERICO
(R.A.) No. 9165
CAMPOS
y

CONVICTED
In this case, although the plastic sachets that the forensic chemist received were
heat-sealed and authenticated by the police officer with his personal markings, the
forensic chemist broke the seal, opened the plastic sachet, and took out some of the
substances for chemical analysis. No evidence had been adduced to show that the
forensic chemist properly closed and resealed the plastic sachets with adhesive and
placed his own markings on the resealed plastic to preserve the integrity of their
contents until they were brought to court. Nor was any stipulation made to this
effect. The plastic sachets apparently showed up at the pre-trial, not bearing the
forensic chemists seal, and was brought from the crime laboratory by someone
who did not care to testify how he came to be in possession of the same. The
evidence did not establish the unbroken chain of custody.
ACQUITTED
The Supreme Court is not unmindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our
society; they are lingering maladies that destroy families and relationships, and
engender crimes. The Court is one with all the agencies concerned in pursuing an
intensive and unrelenting campaign against this social dilemma. Regardless of how
much we want to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the protection provided by
the Constitution, most particularly the presumption of innocence bestowed on the
appellant. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to
produce moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those
who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome this constitutional presumption.
If the prosecution has not proved, in the first place, all the elements of the crime
charged, which in this case is the corpus delicti, then the appellant deserves no less
than an acquittal.
People v. Bernardino where the accused was convicted of illegal possession but
acquitted of illegal sale of shabu due to doubts as to the chain of custody is not on
four squares with the present case. In said case, while the forensic chemist duly
identified the shabu she examined and testified on the results thereof, her testimony

RANILE
G.R. No. 186526

merely referred to the specimens submitted by the apprehending officer, hence, the
conclusion that no clear specific link exists between the examined specimen and
the shabu allegedly sold at the buy-bust except by inference, for there was no
segregation of which sachets of shabu submitted were for the charge of illegal sale
or for the charge of illegal possession. The factual milieu in Bernardino thus
differs from that of the present case, there being no question that there was only
one plastic sachet of shabu confiscated from appellant to give rise to confusion
during its laboratory examination and presentation in evidence. (G.R. No. 171088,
October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 270)
Appellants defense of frame-up fails. For, like alibi, it can easily be concocted,
hence, it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. This appellant failed to
discharge. (Vide People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566
SCRA 571)

September 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Section 5,

PHILIPPINES vs.
Article II of Republic Act
ARNEL
(R.A.) No. 9165
BABANGGOL
y
MACAPIA,
CESAR NARANJO
y RIVERA and
EDWIN SAN JOSE
y TABING,
G.R. No. 181422

October 6, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Section 11, Article II of

PHILIPPINES vs.
Republic Act No. 9165 or
OLIVE
RUBIO
the
Comprehensive
MAMARIL
Dangerous Drugs Act of
G.R. No. 171980
2002

CONVICTED
A persons mere presence when an illegal transaction had taken place does not
mean that he was into the conspiracy. To be guilty as a conspirator, the accused
needs to have done an overt act in pursuit of the crime. (Aquino v. Paiste, G.R. No.
147782, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 255, 272; Cajigas v. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 156541, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 54, 67) While the testimonies of
the three other accused were inconsistent in some material points, they all agreed
that Naranjo was a mere hired driver. The prosecution did not bother to contradict
this. It presented no proof that Naranjo knew of the criminal intentions of the other
accused, much less that he adopted the same. All told, nothing in the circumstances
of this case can be used to infer that Naranjo was in conspiracy with the other
accused.
ACQUITTED - Naranjo
There is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause
since the same must be decided in light of the conditions obtaining in given
situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the findings or opinion
of the judge conducting the examination. (Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, 31
January 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 347)
It is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly performed, absent a
showing to the contrary. A magistrates determination of a probable cause for the

issuance of a search warrant is paid with great deference by a reviewing court, as

long as there was substantial basis for that determination. (People v. Choi, G.R. No.
152950, 3 August 2006, 497 SCRA 547, 556)
The defenses reliance of the quoted testimony of the police officer alone, without
any other evidence to show that there was indeed lack of personal knowledge, is
insufficient to overturn the finding of the trial court. The accused-appellant, having
failed to present substantial rebuttal evidence to defeat the presumption of
regularity of duty of the issuing judge, will not be sustained by the Supreme Court.

October 20, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Section 5,

PHILIPPINES vs.
Article II of Republic Act
ANTONIO
(R.A.) No. 9165
MAGPAYO
G.R. No. 187069

October 20, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs.
ROLANDO
ARANETA y
ABELLA @
BOTONG and
MARILOU
SANTOS y
TANTAY @
MALOU
G.R. No. 191064

Violation of Sections 5 and

11, Article II of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002

November 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE

Violation

of

Section

5,

ACQUITTED
Clearly, there was a break in the chain of custody of the seized substances. The
failure of the prosecution to establish the evidences chain of custody is fatal to its
case. Under no circumstance can we consider or even safely assume that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the drug was properly preserved by the
apprehending officers. There can be no crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug
when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same
specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drugs. (People v. Suan,
G.R. No. 184546, 22 February 2010 citing Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, 23
November 2007, 538 SCRA 611.)
ACQUITTED
The Supreme Court points out the defenses failure to contest the admissibility of
the seized items as evidence during trial as this was the initial point in objecting to
illegally seized evidence. At the trial, the seized shabu was duly marked, made the
subject of examination and cross-examination, and eventually offered as evidence,
yet at no instance did the appellant manifest or even hint that there were lapses in
the safekeeping of seized items that affected their admissibility, integrity and
evidentiary value. In People v. Hernandez, we held that objection to the
admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party
desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of
objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on
appeal. (People of the Philippines v. Sitti Domado, G.R. No. 172971, June 16,
2010)
CONVICTED
Even though non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR may be excused, such cannot

PHILIPPINES
vs
MARIO
VILLANUEVA
BAGA
G.R. No. 189844

Article II of Republic Act

No. (RA) 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002

be relied upon when there is lack of any acceptable justification for failure to do so.
The Court, citing People v. Sanchez, explained that the saving clause applies only
where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained
the cited justifiable grounds. (G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194)
In this case, the prosecution provided no explanation as to why there was a
contradiction as to the markings on the confiscated drugs. This is similar to what
happened in Zarraga v. People, where the Court held that the material
inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were
made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to
the identity of the corpus delicti. (G.R. No. 162064, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA
639, 647-648; cited in People v. Lorenzo, supra).
It behooves this Court not to blindingly accept the testimony of a lone witness, as
we ruled: When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on
reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right. (Malillin v. People, supra
note 13, at 639)

November 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Section 11,

PHILIPPINES
vs
Article II of Republic Act
SULPICIO SONNY
No. (RA) 9165 or the
BOY TAN y PHUA
Comprehensive Dangerous
G.R. No. 191069
Drugs Act of 2002.

December 13, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Violation of Section 13, in

PHILIPPINES vs.
relation to Section 11,
ARNOLD
Article II of Republic Act
MARTINEZ et al
No. 9165 for Possession of
G.R. No. 191366
Dangerous Drugs During
Parties, Social Gatherings
or Meetings

ACQUITTED
Here, the arresting officers had sufficient probable cause to make the arrest in view
of the fact that they themselves heard accused-appellant say, Hey Joe, want to buy
Valium 10, Cialis, Viagra? which, in turn, prompted them to ask accused-appellant
what he was selling. When accused-appellant showed them the items, they
identified 120 tablets of Valium 10, a regulated drug. The police officers then
became obligated to arrest accused-appellant, as he was actually committing a
crime in their presencepossession of a dangerous drug, a violation of Sec. 11,
Art. II of RA 9165. Therefore, it is without question that the warrantless search and
arrest of accused-appellant are legal and valid.
CONVICTED
Non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not necessarily
render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, provided that (i) there
is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not
affect the admissibility of the evidence but only its weight. (People v. Del Monte,
G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 637).

When challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the presumption of

regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence of the accused.
(People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 173477, February 26, 2010)
The practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the
presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in the form
of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not
incorrect, it would be more in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges
under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use,
provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15.
The minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of
residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one day, while the penalty under Sec.
15 for first time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months rehabilitation in
a government center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone
would frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them
with an opportunity to recover for a second chance at life.
The presence of dangerous drugs was only in the form of residue on the drug
paraphernalia, and the accused were found positive for use of dangerous drugs.
Granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence obtained admissible, and the chain
of custody intact, the law enforcers should have filed charges under Sec. 15, R.A.
No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs and, if there was no residue at all, they
should have been charged under Sec. 14 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the maximum penalty under Sec. 12
(Possession of Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) shall be imposed on any person who shall
possess any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the maximum penalty is imprisonment of four
years and a fine of P50,000.00. In fact, under the same section, the possession of
such equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facie evidence that the
possessor has used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Sec.
15.
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users, this
Court thus calls on law enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to
exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the presence of dangerous drugs

is only and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory test required under
Sec. 15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs. In such cases, to afford the accused a
chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving possession of
dangerous drugs should only be done when another separate quantity of dangerous
drugs, other than mere residue, is found in the possession of the accused as
provided for in Sec. 15.

December 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE Selling and possessing illegal

PHILIPPINES vs.
drugs
EFREN DITONA et Violation of the Omnibus
al
Election Code
G.R. NO. 18984
Illegal possession of firearms

ACQUITTED
The State has to prove as well the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. (People v.
Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 356).
It must be shown that the suspected substance the police officers seized from the
accused is the same thing presented in court during the trial. Thus, the chain of
custody rule is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence
are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized
drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the
court. (People of the Philippines v. Sitco, G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010; see also
People of the Philippines v. Nandi, G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010)
The witnesses should be able to describe these movements to ensure that there had
been no change in the condition of the item and that no one who did not belong in
the chain had access to the same. (Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30,
2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633)
There is no room to apply the presumption of regularity in the police officers
performance of official duty. While the testimonies of the police officers who
apprehended the accused are generally accorded full faith and credit because of the
presumption that they have performed their duties regularly, such presumption is
effectively destroyed where the performance of their duties is tainted with failure to
comply with the prescribed procedure and guidelines. (People of the Philippines v.
De Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010.)
The drug enforcement agencies of the government and the prosecution should put
their acts together to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent absolved.
Poor handling and preservation of the integrity of evidence show lack of
professionalism and waste the time that the courts could use for hearing and
adjudicating other cases. Prosecutors ought not to file drugs cases in court unless
the law enforcement agencies are able to show documented compliance with every

requirement of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous

Drugs Act of 2002. Likewise prosecutors ought to have a checklist of the questions
they should ask their witnesses in drugs cases that would elicit the required proof.
ACQUITTED Selling and possessing illegal drugs
CONVICTED Violation of the Omnibus Election Code
http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2013/03/february-2013-philippine-supreme-court.html