Miranda v. Arizona
Stewart was notified of his
Brief Fact Summary. The defendants offered incriminating evidence
during police interrogations without prior notification of their rights
under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution (the
Constitution).
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Government authorities need to inform
individuals of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights prior to an
interrogation following an arrest.
Facts. The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court)
consolidated four separate cases with issues regarding the
admissibility of evidence obtained during police interrogations.
The first Defendant, Ernesto Miranda (Mr. Miranda), was arrested
for kidnapping and rape. Mr. Miranda was an immigrant, and
although the officers did not notify Mr. Miranda of his rights, he
signed a confession after two hours of investigation. The signed
statement included a statement that Mr. Miranda was aware of his
rights.
The second Defendant, Michael Vignera (Mr. Vignera), was
arrested for robbery. Mr. Vignera orally admitted to the robbery to the
first officer after the arrest, and he was held in detention for eight
hours before he made an admission to an assistant district attorney.
There was no evidence that he was notified of his Fifth Amendment
constitutional rights.
The third Defendant, Carl Calvin Westover (Mr. Westover), was
arrested for two robberies. Mr. Westover was questioned over
fourteen hours by local police, and then was handed to Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, who were able to get signed
confessions from Mr. Westover. The authorities did not notify Mr.
Westover of his Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
The fourth Defendant, Roy Allen Stewart (Mr. Stewart), was
arrested, along with members of his family (although there was no
evidence of any wrongdoing by his family) for a series of purse
snatches. There was no evidence that Mr.
rights. After nine interrogations, Mr. Stewart admitted to the crimes.
Issue. Whether the government is required to notify the arrested
defendants of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights against
self-incrimination before they interrogate the defendants?
Held. The government needs to notify arrested individuals of their
Fifth Amendment constitutional rights, specifically: their right to
remain silent; an explanation that anything they say could be used
against them in court; their right to counsel; and their right to have
counsel appointed to represent them if necessary. Without this
notification, anything admitted by an arrestee in an interrogation will
not be admissible in court.
Dissent. Justice Tom Clark (J. Clark) argued that the Due Process
Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution
would apply to interrogations. There is not enough evidence to
demonstrate a need to apply a new rule as the majority finds here.
The second dissent written by Justice John Harlan (J. Harlan) also
argues that the Due Process Clauses should apply. J. Harlan further
argues that the Fifth Amendment rule against self-incrimination was
never intended to forbid any and all pressures against self-
incrimination.
Justice Byron White (J. White) argued that there is no historical
support for broadening the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to
include the rights that the majority extends in their decision. The
majority is making new law with their holding.
Discussion. The majority notes that once an individual chooses to
remain silent or asks to first see an attorney, any interrogation should
cease. Further, the individual has the right to stop the interrogation at
any time, and the government will not be allowed to argue for an
exception to the notification rule.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.
ANACLETO Q. OLVIS, Acquitted, ROMULO VILLAROJO,
LEONARDO CADEMAS and DOMINADOR SORELA,
G.R. No. 71092
September 30, 1987
Forced re-enactments, like uncounselled and coerced
confessions come within the ban against self- incrimination. Evidence
based on such re-enactment is a violation of the Constitution and
hence, incompetent evidence. Here, accused is not merely required
to exhibit some physical characteristics; by and large, he is likewise
made to admit criminal responsibility against his will. It is a police
procedure just as condemnable as an uncounselled confession.
The lack of counsel makes statement in contemplation of law,
'involuntary' even if it were otherwise voluntary.
FACTS: On September 9, 1975, authorities from the Integrated
National Police station of Barrio Polanco, in Zamboanga del Norte,
received a report that a certain Deosdedit Bagon is missing.
Bagon had been in fact missing since two days before. He was last
seen by his wife in the afternoon of September 7, 1975, on his way
home to Sitio Sebaca where they resided.
A search party was conducted by the authorities to mount an inquiry.
As a matter of police procedure, the team headed off to Sitio Sebaca
to question possible witnesses. There, they chanced upon an
unnamed volunteer, who informed them that Deosdedit Bagon was
last seen together with Dominador Sorela, one of the accused herein.
The authorities then thereafter picked up Sorela for interrogation.
Sorela bore several scratches on his face, neck and arms when the
police found him. According to him, he sustained those wounds while
clearing his ricefield. Apparently unconvinced, the police had Sorela
take them to the ricefield where he sustained his injuries. But half way
there, Sorela illegally broke down, and, in what would apparently crack
the case for the police, admitted having participated in the killing of the
missing Bagon. Sorela allegedly confessed having been with
Deosdedit Bagon, a friend of his, in the evening of September 7, 1976
in Sitio Sebaca. They were met by Romulo Villarojo and Leonardo
Cademas, Sorela's co-accused herein and likewise friends of the
deceased, who led them to a secluded place in the ricefields.
According to their confessions Villarojo attacked Bagon with a bolo,
hacking him at several parts of the body until he, Bagon, was dead.
Moments later, Sorela fled, running into thick cogon grasses where he
suffered facial and bodily scratches.
The police soon picked up Villarojo and Cademas. Together with
Sorela, they were turned over to the custody of Captain Encabo the
Polanco Station Commander.
The police thereafter made the three re-enact the crime. Sorela was
directed to lead them to the grounds where Discredit Bagon was
supposed to have been buried. But it was Villarojo who escorted them
to a watery spot somewhere in the ricefields, where the sack-covered,
decomposing cadaver of Bagon lay in a shallow grave.
The necropsy report prepared by the provincial health officer disclosed
that the deceased suffered twelve stab and hack wounds, six of which
were determined to be fatal.
In the re-enactment, the suspects, the three accused herein,
demonstrated how the victim was boloed to death. A photograph,
shows the appellant Villarojo in the posture of raising a bolo as if to
strike another, while Solero and Cademas look on. Another
photograph, portrays Villarojo in the act of concealing the murder
weapon behind a banana tree, apparently after having done the victim
in.
Initial findings of investigators disclosed that the threesome of Solero,
Villarojo, and Cademas executed Discredit Bagon on orders of
Anacleto Olvis, then Polanco municipal mayor, for a reward of
P3,000.00 each.
While in custody, the three executed five separate written confessions
each. The first confessions were taken on September 9, 1975 in the
local Philippine Constabulary headquarters. The second were made
before the Polanco police. On September 18, 1975, the three accused
reiterated the same confessions before the National Bureau of
Investigation Dipolog City sub-office. On September 21, 1975 and
September 25, 1975, they executed two confessions more, again
before the Philippine Constabulary and the police of Polanco.
In their confessions of September 9, 1975, September 14, 1975,
September 21, 1975, and September 25, 1975, the said accused
again pointed to the then accused Anacleto Olvis as principal by
inducement, who allegedly promised them a reward of P3,000.00
each.
In their confessions of September 18, 1975, sworn before agents of
the National Bureau of Investigation, however, they categorically
denied Olvis' involvement in the knowing. We note that the three were
transported to the Dipolog City NBI sub-office following a request on
September 10, 1975 by Mrs. Diolinda O. Adaro daughter of Olvis, and
upon complaint by her of harassment against her father by his
supposed political enemies.
The court a quo rendered separate verdicts on the three accused on
the one hand, and Anacleto Olvis on the other. However Olvis was
acquitted, while the three were all sentenced to die for the crime of
murder.
In acquitting Olvis, the trial court rejected the three accused's earlier
confessions pointing to him as the mastermind, and denied the
admissibility thereof insofar as far as he was concerned. It rejected
claims of witnesses that the three accused-appellants would carry out
Olvis' alleged order to kill Bagon upon an offer of a reward when in
fact no money changed hands.
With the acquittal of Olvis, however the remaining accused-appellants
subsequently repudiated their alleged confessions in open court
despite prior confessions, and now were alleging that there were
threats by the Polanco investigators of physical harm if they refused
to "cooperate" in the solution of the case. They likewise alleged that
they were instructed by the Polanco police investigators to implicate
Anacieto Olvis in the case. They insisted on their innocence.
The accused Romulo Villarojo averred, specifically, that it was the
deceased who had sought to kill him, for which he acted in self-
defense. For the defense, the accused Romulo Villarojo admitted
hacking the victim to death with a bolo. He stressed, however, that he
did so in self- defense. He completely absolved his co-accused
Dominador Sorela and Leonardo Cademas from any liability.
The murder of Deosdedit Bagon was witnessed by no other person.
The police of Polanco had but the three accused-appellants'
statements to support its claiming.
Issues:
(1.) Whether these statements, as any of the extrajudicial
confession can stand up in court.
(2.) Whether Villarojos claim of self-defense tenable?
Ruling:
(1.) No. The three accused-appellants' extrajudicial
confessions are inadmissible in evidence. Prior to any
questioning, the person must be warned that he has a
right to remain silent, that any statement he does make
may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a
right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or
appointed
At the outset, if a person in custody is to be subjected to
interrogation, he must first be informed in clear and
unequivocal terms that he has the right to remain silent.
For those unaware of the privilege, the warning is needed
simply to make them aware of the threshold requirement
for an intelligent decision as to its exercise. More
important, such a warning is an absolute pre-requisite in
overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation enactment in question. It is under such circumstances that
atmosphere. the Constitution holds a strict application.

The confessions in the case at bar suffer from a Any statement he might have made thereafter is therefore
Constitutional infirmity In their supposed statements subject to the Constitutional guaranty. In such a case, he
dated September 9, 14, and 21, 1975, the accused- should have been provided with counsel.
appellants were not assisted by counsel when they
"waived" their rights to counsel. The lack of counsel (2.) The records will disclose that the deceased suffered
makes statement in contemplation of law, 'involuntary' twelve assorted wounds caused by a sharp instrument.
even if it were otherwise voluntary, technically. The assault severed his right hand and left his head
almost separated from his body. This indicates a serious
Forced re-enactments, like uncounselled and coerced intent to kill, rather than self-defense.
confessions come within the ban against self-
incrimination. The 1973 Constitution, the Charter In finding that Villarojo did take the life of the victim,
prevailing at the time of the proceedings below, says: superior strength or nocturnity is unfound. In the absence
of any other proof, the severity and number of wounds
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against sustained by the deceased are not, by themselves,
himself. sufficient proof to warrant the appreciation of the generic
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
This should be distinguished, parenthetically, from Hence, Villarojo should be liable for plain homicide, and
mechanical acts the accused is made to execute not accused-appellants Leonardo Cademas and Dominador
meant to unearth undisclosed facts but to ascertain Sorela are acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
physical attributes determinable by simple observation.
This includes requiring the accused to submit to a test to
extract virus from his body, or compelling him to
expectorate morphine from his mouth, or making her
submit to a pregnancy test, or a foot printing test or
requiring him to take part in a police lineup in certain
cases." In each case, the accused does not speak his
guilt. It is not a prerequisite therefore that he be provided
with the guiding hand of counsel. But a forced re-
enactment is quite another thing. Here, the accused is not
merely required to exhibit some physical characteristics;
by and large, he is made to admit criminal responsibility
against his will. It is a police procedure just as
condemnable as an uncounselled confession. It should be
furthermore observed that the three accused-appellants
were in police custody when they took part in the re-
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RODRIGO AWID AND
MADUM GANIH G.R. No. 185388, June 16, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RODRIGO AWID AND
MADUM GANIH G.R. No. 185388, June 16, 2010
Criminal Law Digested Case / Case Digest
Kidnapping for ransom
FACTS:
On January 9, 2000 only Mrs. Lee was left in the house,
accompanied by three housemaids, and the accused Ernesto
Andagao, a gardener-houseboy. They all slept in an extension of the
main house, which extension had three rooms. Mrs. Lee was in one
with her 11 Japanese Spitz puppies. Next to hers was the room
where Andagao slept, and then there was the room of the
housemaids.
Part of Mrs. Lees night routine was to let her puppies out of her
room about midnight so they could take a leak. At the early dawn of
January 10, 2000, after opening the door of her room to let her
puppies out, Mrs. Lee was surprised to see a stranger, a man,
standing a few meters from her door. She immediately went back in
and tried to shut her door close but the man succeeded in pushing
the door open and pulling her out of the room just as another man
appeared. Someone struck Mrs. Lee with a gun on both shoulders
and kicked her on the ribs. When she fell down, she received a kick
on her buttocks.
Although she cannot recognized the faces of her abductors because
she was blindfolded and covered by black cloth, she noticed that
they left Zamboanga City. After traveling three to four hours, they
arrived in a house which she later knew that it belonged to a certain
Suod Hussain. On January 10, 2000, Mrs. Lee met accused Madum
Ganih. She was held for 20 days and during that time she
communicated her husband with the order of Ganih to prepare a
ransom of P15,000,000. Mr. Lee asked the kidnappers to lower the
amount since he could only raise an amount of P1,000,000. Calling
her family a third time, the kidnappers reduced their demand to P4
million and threatened to cut off Mrs. Lees head unless this was
paid.
In the evening of May 5, 2000, Ganih told Mrs. Lee that they would
release her the next day. At about 4:00 a.m. of May 6, 2000, her
abductors brought Mrs. Lee to Arena Blanco in Zamboanga City
where Ganih gave her P100.00 for fare and an M203 bullet as
memento. She eventually got home.
Sometime after, the police arrested some men which in a police line-
up, Mrs. Lee later positively identified as her abductors. For his part,
Ganih denied the allegations and claimed an alibi that he was in his
house at the said incident.
On May 21, 2002 the RTC rendered judgment,convicting Ganih of
the crime charged and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of death.
The RTC, however, acquitted Awid for insufficiency of evidence.
ISSUE:
Is accused Ganih, in conspiracy with others, guilty of kidnapping for
ransom?
RULING:
To prove the crime charged, the prosecution had to show (a) that the
accused was a private person; (b) that he kidnapped or detained or
in any manner deprived another of his or her liberty; (c) that the
kidnapping or detention was illegal; and (d) that the victim was
kidnapped or detained for ransom. All these have been proved in this
case.

Significantly, Ganih offered nothing but his bare denial and

unsubstantiated alibi to counter the overwhelming evidence that the
prosecution adduced against him. His other contention is that the
police made Mrs. Lee identify him, not in a proper police line-up but
in a mere show-up after giving her some improper suggestions.

What the Court condemns are prior or contemporaneous improper

suggestions that point out the suspect to the witness as the
perpetrator to be identified. Besides, granting that the out-of-court
identification was irregular, Mrs. Lees court testimony clearly shows
that she positively identified Ganih independently of the previous
identification she made in front of the police station. Mrs. Lee could
not have made a mistake in identifying him since she had ample
opportunities to study the faces and peculiar body movements of her
kidnappers in her almost four months of ordeal with them.Indeed,
she was candid and direct in her recollection, narrating events as
she saw them take place. Her testimony, including her identification
of the appellant, was positive, straightforward, and categorical.

The totality of the prosecutions evidence proves beyond

reasonable doubt that Ganih and the others with him kidnapped Mrs.
Lee for ransom. The crime was punishable by death at the time of its
commission but, with the enactment of Republic Act 9346 that
prohibits the imposition of such penalty, the CA was correct in
lowering the penalty to reclusion perpetuawithout eligibility for parole
under the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 109242, January 26, 1999
Facts:
On February 10, 1989, Jacinto Merete, a letter carrier in the Makati
Central Post Office, disclosed to his chief, Projecto Tumagan, the
existence of a group responsible for the pilferage of mail matter in the
post office. Among those mentioned by Merete were Arnold
Pasicolan, an emergency laborer assigned as a bag opener in the
Printed Matters Section, and Redentor Aguinaldo, a mail sorter of the
Makati Post Office. For this reason, Tumagan sought the aid of the
National Bureau of Investigation in apprehending the group
responsible for mail pilferage in the Makati Post Office.
On February 17, 1989, NBI Director Salvador Ranin dispatched NBI
agents to Legaspi Village following a report that the group would stage
a theft of mail matter on that day. Tumagan accompanied a team of
NBI agents composed of Senior Agent Arles Vela and two other
agents in a private car.
At 2:00 p.m., a postal delivery jeep, driven by one Henry Orindai, was
parked in front of the Esguerra Building on Adelantado Street.
Pasicolan alighted from the jeep bringing with him a mail bag. Upon
reaching Amorsolo St., Pasicolan gave the mail bag to two persons,
who were later identified as Ronnie Romero and petitioner Lito
Marcelo. The latter transferred the contents of the mail bag to a
travelling bag. Meanwhile, the NBI team led by agent Vela, upon
seeing Pasicolan going towards Amorsolo St., moved their car and
started towards Amorsolo St. They were just in time to see Pasicolan
handing over the mail bag to Marcelo and Romero. At that point, Atty.
Sacaguing and Arles Vela arrested the two accused. The NBI agents
followed the postal delivery jeep, overtook it, and arrested Pasicolan.
The NBI agents brought Pasicolan, Marcelo, and Romero to their
headquarters. Romero, Marcelo, and Pasicolan were asked to
affix their signatures on the envelopes of the letters. They did so
in the presence of the members of the NBI Administrative and
Investigative Staff and the people transacting business with the NBI at
that time. According to Director Ranin, they required the accused to
do this in order to identify the letters as the very same letters
confiscated from them.
A case for qualified theft was filed before the Sandiganbayan
wherein the accused were declared guilty.
Issue(s):
Whether or not the letters signed by the petitioner were inadmissible
as evidence.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the letters were valid evidence. It is
known that during custodial investigation, a person has the right to
remain silent and the right to an attorney. Any admission or confession
made in the absence of counsel is inadmissible as evidence.
Furthermore, no person shall be compelled to be a witness against
himself. In the instant case, even though the petitioner was asked to
sign the letters, the letters are still admissible as evidence because
the accused was convicted not only by means of these letters but
also by testimonies made by the NBI agents. Moreover, the
Supreme Court held that the letters were validly seized as an
incident of a valid arrest and therefore can stand on their own.
The decision of the Sandiganbayan is affirmed.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205741 July 23, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appeliee,
vs.
REYMAN ENDAYAy LAIG, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
For review of this Court is the 11 May 2012 Decision 1 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04872. The CA affirmed the
conviction of Reyman Endaya y Laig (appellant) for the offenses of
illegal sale and illegal possession of the prohibited drug
methamphetamine hyd.rochloride or shabu, respectively punishable
under Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
 Antecedents
Appellant was charged under two separate informations filed before
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lipa City, Branch 12, with violation
of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II ofR.A. No. 9165, committed as
follows:
Criminal Case No. 0098-2003
That on or about the 20th day of November, 2002, at about 7:00
oclock in the evening, at Barangay 2-A, Municipality of
Mataasnakahoy, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully
and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control eight (8)
small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu",
having a total weight of 0.32 gram, a dangerous drug.2
Criminal Case No. 0099-2003
That on or about the 20th day of November, 2002, at about 7:00
oclock in the evening, at Barangay 2-A, Municipality of
Mataasnakahoy, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully
and unlawfully sell, deliver and give away one (1) small heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu", weighing 0.04 gram, a
dangerous drug.3
Prosecutions Version of the Events
On 11 November 2002, police operatives of Mataasnakahoy Police
Station, acting on a report from a barangay official that appellant is
involved in illegal drug activities,conducted surveillance operations
on appellant. A week of surveillance confirmed the veracity of the
report4 hence, on 20 November 2002, a team, composedof SPO4
Moriel Benedicto (SPO4 Benedicto), SPO3 Nestor Babadilla(SPO3
Babadilla) and PO2 Edwin Chavez (PO2 Chavez), was formed to
perform a buy-bust operation against appellant.5 A civilian asset,
armed with five(5) pieces of P100.00 bills as marked money, acted
as poseur-buyer.6
On board a car from Mataasnakahoy Police Station, the police
operatives and the civilian asset proceeded to the place of operation:
the Golden Luck Beer Garden located at Barangay2-A,
Mataasnakahoy, Batangas. At a distance of about ten (10) to fifteen
(15) meters from the beer house, the civilian asset alighted from the
vehicle and proceeded on foot to the establishment where appellant
was a regular customer. In the meantime, the buy-bust team
positioned themselves ata place outside the restaurant not far from
where the civilian asset was. Appellant subsequently arrived and
approached the civilian asset, who was standing in front of the beer
house. The two talked for a while,7 after which, the police operatives
saw the civilian asset hand the marked money to appellant who, in
turn, handed something to the former which later turned out to be a
plastic sachet containing shabu.8
After receiving the plastic sachet from appellant, the civilian asset
made the pre-arranged signal of touching his head to signify that the
transaction had been completed. The police officers then
immediately approached appellant, introduced themselves as police
officers and informed him that he is under arrest for selling
shabu.9Appellant was informed of his constitutional rights in
Tagalog10 and then frisked by SPO3 Babadilla and PO2 Chavez for
any deadly weapon. During this body search, SPO3 Babadilla
recovered the marked money from appellant.11 Meanwhile, the
shabu subject of the sale between appellant and the civilian asset
was handed by the latter to PO2 Chavez.12
Appellant was forthwith brought tothe Mataasnakahoy Police Station
where police officers again searched his body to look for an
identification card.13 This body search yielded another eight (8)
plastic sachets of shabu, found in his wallet by PO2 Chavez, who
then marked them by writing a figure "8" on each plastic
sachet.14 The shabusubject of the buy-bust operation, on the other
hand, was marked by PO2 Chavez by writing the same figure "8" on
the sachet but he added a distinctive mark by burning the edges of
the plastic sachet to distinguish it from the other eight sachets
confiscated from appellant.15 The team thereafter conducted an
inventory of the items seized from appellant in the presence of
appellant, Clerk of Court Rogelio Binay of the Mataasnakahoy
Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Counselor Renato Tiquiz,
BarangayCaptain Victorina Orosco, NGO representative Olivia
Macariola, Sangguniang Bayanmembers Romeo Laqui and Osea
and media representative Virgo Santiago, who all signed the receipt
of property seized.16 A photograph of appellant and the seized items,
together with the aforementioned witnesses was taken at the police
station.17 Finally, a letterrequest for laboratory examination, together
with the marked sachets, was transmitted to the Philippine National
Police crime laboratory.18 The qualitative examination conducted on
the specimens yielded positive results for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.19
Version of the Defense
Appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that at around
7:00 in the evening of 20 November 2002, he was at home in
Barangay Nangkaan, Mataasnakahoy, Batangas, watching TV with
his family. At around 9:00 in the evening, he left the house to go with
a friend to the bus station in Lipa City to fetch his friends sister.
From the bus station, they proceeded to the GoldenLuck Beer
Garden.20 While drinking beer inside the establishment, two police
officers, one of whom was SPO4 Benedicto, approached appellant
and invited him togo out with them to the police car.21 Appellant
obliged, but as he was about to get into the car, SPO4 Benedicto
punched him in the stomach and pushed him inside the car. SPO3
Babadilla and PO2 Chavez then joined them. It was then, according
to appellant, when the police officers started their threats to kill him
unless he reveals to them the name of the drug pusher in the area.
In reply to their threats, appellant told them that he did not know
anyone selling drugs.22
Appellant alleged that they drove around the municipality of
Mataasnakahoy, circling it three times before the police officers
brought him to the police station. Before he was allowed to get off
the car, SPO3 Babadilla took his wallet and left it in the car. At the
police station, he was immediately put in jail but he was unable to
ask the reason for his imprisonment because one of the police
officers punched him again.23 When he was subsequently taken out
of his cell, the police officers led him to a table where they showed
him plastic sachets containing shabuallegedly found in his
wallet.24 Thereafter, the police officers took photographs of him and
the items supposedly seized from him, although he refused to be
photographed. He was also made to signa document, which later
turned out to be the inventory of property seized, without allowing
him to read the contents thereof and without the assistance of a
counsel. Neither did the police officers inform him of his
constitutional rights.25
Appellant claimed that he did not file a case against the police
officers because he was already incarcerated and, besides, he is
ignorant of the procedure in the filing of cases.26
The Ruling of the Trial Court
Finding that the prosecution was able to successfully prove the
existence of the essential elements ofillegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the trial court rendered a
Decision27 dated 22 October 2010, the dispositive portion of which
states:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, accused Reyman
Endaya y Laig is convicted of the offenses charged in these cases
for violation of Section 5 (paragraph 1) and Section 11 (paragraph 3),
both of Article II of Republic Act 9165 and is hereby sentenced to
suffer:
a) Section 11 Imprisonment for a period of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day as minimum to twenty (20) years as
maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00 and;
b.) Section 5 Life imprisonment and a fine
of P500,000.00.28
xxx
 The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA affirmed the judgment of the trial court upon a finding that
the prosecution was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, all
the elements of the crimes with which appellant was charged,and
consequently, his guilt.
The CA brushed aside the attempt ofappellant to assail the credibility
of the witnesses for the prosecution, declaring that the
inconsistencies in their respective testimonies, which appellant tried
to amplify, are too minor to adversely affect their credibility. More
importantly, the identity of the corpus delictiin this case was properly
preserved and established by the prosecution, thereby ascertaining
the guilt of appellant. The CA, thus, held:
The inconsistencies allegedly committed by [SPO4] Benedicto and
[PO2] Chavez will not save [appellant] from conviction. To secure a
reversal of the lower courts findings, the inconsistencies should
have pertained to the actual buy-bust itself, that crucial moment
when [appellant] was caught selling or in possession of shabu, not to
peripheral matters. x x x
xxxx
To be sure, the discrepant statements alluded to by [appellant] were
too minor to adversely affect the credibility of the witnesses. Those
discrepancies did not detract from the established fact of the crimes
charged against him. As the High Court held, inconsistencies in the
testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in
actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair
their credibility.
In view of all the foregoing, this [c]ourt finds that [appellant] failed to
overthrow the presumption of regularity accorded the police officers
in the performance of their official duty. He utterly failed to prove that
in testifying against him, these witnesses were motivated by reasons
other than the duty to curb the sale and possession of prohibited
drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. There is no proof of
any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police authorities to
impute falsely such a serious crime to [appellant]. Thus, the [c]ourt
will not allow the formers testimony to be overcome by self-serving
defenses.
xxxx
This Court likewise finds no merit in [appellants] contention that the
prosecution failed to establish the corpus delictiof the offense.
Testimonies of prosecution witnesses convincingly stated that the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly
preserved by them. [SPO4] Benedicto testified that he witnessed
when their asset handed the shabu (which he bought from appellant)
to [PO2] Chavez. Thereafter, he saw [PO2] Chavez putmarkings on
them. [PO2] Chavez also attested that he marked the 1 sachet of
shabu sold by [appellant] to their asset as well as the 8 sachets
ofshabu confiscated from [appellant]. They eventually prepared a
request for laboratory examination. The Chemistry Report stated that
all the specimens submitted by the apprehending officers which bore
the same markings gave positive result to the tests for the presence
of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
It is thus evident that the identities of the corpus delictiwere properly
preserved and established by the prosecution. Besides, 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. [Appellant], in this case, has the burden to show that
the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a
presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers
and a presumption that public officers properly discharged their
duties. Needless to say, [appellant] failed to muster out such burden.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed October
22, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Lipa City,
in Criminal Cases Nos. 0098-2003 and 0099-2003 convicting
Reyman Endaya y Laig for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.29
In separate Manifestations dated 21 May 201330 and 13 June
2013,31 respectively, appellant and appellee manifested their
intention not to file a supplemental brief before this Court and to
adopt the respective briefs they filed before the CA.
The Issues
Appellant raised the following errors in his brief:
I imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS
11 AND 5 OF R.A. NO. 9165 NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE
RECEIPT FOR PROPERTY SEIZED WHICH THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT WAS FORCED TO SIGN IN VIOLATION OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN ADMITTING THE
SACHETS OF SHABU ASEVIDENCE AGAINST THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit; hence, we sustain the judgment of
conviction.
I
Appellants guilt for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu was
proven beyond reasonable doubt
The illegal sale of dangerous drugs is punishable under the first
paragraph of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 as follows:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.- The penalty of life
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver,
give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy
regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker
in any of such transactions. (Emphasis supplied)
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following
essential elements must be established: (1) the identities of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration for
the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. What is material in the prosecution of an illegal sale of
dangerousdrugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delictiin court as
evidence.32 The commission of illegal sale merely requires the
consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment
the buyer receives the drug from the seller. Aslong as a police officer
or civilian asset went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer
was accepted by the appellant, followed by the delivery of the
dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated.
In the case at bar, the prosecution has amply proven all the elements
of the drug sale with moral certainty.33
The records show that appellant was arrested in a legitimate buy-
bust operation conducted after a week of surveillance. The police
officers comprising the buy-bust team positivelyidentified appellant
as the one who sold the plastic sachet of shabuto their civilian asset
who, in turn, handed the marked money to appellant. Both the sachet
of shabuand the marked money were presented as evidence in A: We stood as the back-up of the poseur-buyer, sir.
court. SPO4 Benedicto narrated in detail the transaction during his
testimony before the court. Thus: Q: And your poseur-buyer, what will be his participation?

xxxx A: He will be the one to act as the buyer of shabu to [sic] Reyman
Endaya, sir.
[PROSECUTOR] How was that preparation made to conduct a
buybust operation? xxxx

[SPO4 BENEDICTO] We contacted our asset or informant so that he Q: And after your asset proceeded to that place, where did you
will be the one who will act as the buyer from Reyman Endaya. position yourselves?

Q: What will be used by your asset in buying shabu from Reyman A: We hid in a place not far from the place where the asset was
Endaya? positioned.

A: We gave him marked money, sir. xxxx

Q: How much was the marked money given to your asset to be used Q: And when [appellant] approachedyour asset, what transpired
in the buy-bust operation? between your asset and Reyman Endaya if anything happened that
time?
A: P500.00, sir.
A: They talked for a while and as we could see it, they exchanged
Q: In what denomination? something, sir.

A: Five (5) pieces of P100.00 bills. Q: Do you know what was given by your asset to Reyman Andaya?

xxxx A: Yes, sir.

Q: And in that buy-bust operation that you conducted x x x, you said Q: What was handed by your asset to Reyman Andaya?
that it was conducted around 6:00 oclock in the evening x x x. Who
were involved in this buy-bust operation? A: He gave the money, sir.

A: SPO4 Moriel Benedicto, SPO2 Nestor Babadilla, and PO2 Edwin Q: What money?
Chavez.
A: The marked money that we gave him, sir.
Q: What will be your participation, the three of you?
Q: How about Reyman Endaya? Do you know or do you have any
inkling as to what he gave to your asset?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was your inkling about what Reyman Endaya gave to your
asset?
A: The shabu which our asset bought from him, sir.
Q: And after this exchange of marked money and the suspected
shabu happened between your asset and Reyman Endaya, what
was done by your asset if anything was done by him?
A: As we have previously arranged, heheld his head as a sign that
he has already purchased shabu, sir.
Q: And after getting or seeing this pre-arranged signal to signify that
your asset had already bought shabu from Reyman Endaya, what
action did you take?
A: We approached them and we introduced ourselves as policemen
and we arrested him.34
xxxx
The foregoing testimony was corroborated by PO2 Chavez on the
witness stand:
[PROSECUTOR] What happened on that buy-bust operation that
you conducted?
[SPO2 CHAVEZ] At 7:00 o clock in the evening, Reyman Endaya
arrived and during that time, our poseur buyer was already
positioned and we did not hear their actual conversation but we saw
when the poseur buyer handed the marked money to Reyman
Endaya and Reyman Endaya in turn handed to our poseur buyer
something and on [sic] that point, we saw our poseur buyer giving a
signal to us which means that he had already bought the shabu from
Reyman Endaya.
Q: Where were you when your asset who acted as poseur buyer and
Reyman Endaya were [doing] this transaction?
A: We were hiding on [sic] a place which was near from [sic] the two,
sir.
Q: How far were you actually from the two?
A: More or less five (5) meters, sir.
xxxx
Q: And when you saw your asset giving that signal, what did you do?
A: We ran towards them and we arrested Reyman Endaya for selling
that shabu, sir.35
On the other hand, the pertinent provisions of Section 11 of R.A. No.
9165 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs state that:
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fineranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law,shall possess any dangerous drug in the following
quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing
quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20)
years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the
quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium,
morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocainehydrochloride, marijuana resin
or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu",
or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or
"ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or
newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any
therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.
For the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the following requisites must concur: (a) the
accused was in possession of an item or object thatis identified to be
a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not
authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug.36
The foregoing elements were likewise convincingly established
herein. When the police operatives bodily searched appellant for his
wallet at the police station, they found eight(8) plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance which, upon laboratory
examination, turned out to be shabu.The respective testimonies of
SPO4 Benedicto and PO2 Chavez on the matter provide:
[PROSECUTOR] And after putting the person of Reyman Endaya
under arrest and informing him of the cause of his arrest and his
constitutional rights, what else did you do in [sic] the person of
Reyman Endaya?
[SPO4 BENEDICTO] He was searched by our two companions, sir.
xxxx
Q: And did you come to know the result of this body search
conducted by SPO3 Nestor Babadilla and PO2 Edwin Chavez?
A: My companion SPO3 Nestor Babadilla was able to recover the
marked money worth P5,000.00 (sic) which Reyman was still
holding.
Q: What else was recovered from the person of Reyman Endaya if
anything else was recovered from him in the course of his body
search?
A: In the place where we arrestedhim, those were the only items
which we were able to recover from him, sir.
Q: Why? After that body searchwas conducted, did you recover
anything else from Reyman Endaya in any other place?
A: When we brought him to the office, we recovered eight (8) plastic
sachets of shabu in his wallet, sir.37
[PROSECUTOR] How did it come about that you were able to
recover eight (8) separate sachets of shabu from the wallet of
Reyman Andaya when you were already at the police station?
[PO2 CHAVEZ] Upon arrival at the police station, we turned him over
to the police investigator and we again searched his body and on
[sic] his wallet, we found the eight (8) sachets of shabu, sir.38
Chain of custody unbroken;
identity of corpus delicti established
with moral certainty
Appellant argues that the arresting officers failed to comply with the
requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
on the inventory of the items seized from him.According to him, the
inventory of the plastic sachet taken from him at the Golden Luck
Beer Garden was not completed immediately after his arrest and at
the place where he was arrested; the same sachet of shabusubject
of the illegal sale was not marked at the time and place of his arrest,
but only at the police station; and there was no representative from
the Department of Justice as the government official present during
the inventory was the Clerk of Court, who is a representative of the
Supreme Court and not of the Department of Justice. He insists that
no less than strict compliance with the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 is
mandated by the law.
To ascertain that the illegal drugs presented in court are the ones
actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that:
(a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause
provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken
link in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated
items.39 Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 embodies the procedural
safeguards intended to counter or prevent possible police abuses in
cases of buy-bust operations. The provision provides, in part:
Section 21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, PlantSources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof;
Compliance with the foregoing provisions, "especially the required
physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs in the
presence of the accused, the media, and responsible government
functionaries, would be clear evidence that the police had carried out
a legitimate buy-bust operation."40
The records of this case clearly showthat the foregoing requirements
were complied with.
As mandated by the above-quoted provision of law, the
apprehending team conducted a physical inventory of the drugs
confiscated from appellant, as evidenced by the "Receipt for
Property Seized"41 which was signed by representatives from the
municipal trial court, a non-governmental organization, the media,
and three locally elected public officials, as proof that they were
present when the inventory was carried out. Likewise, a
photograph42 of the accused, together with the items seized from
him, and with the aforementioned representativesfrom the public and
private sector as witnesses, was taken at the police station. The
physical inventory and taking of the photograph weredone after the
confiscated items were marked by PO2 Chavez. Finally, within 24
hours from the time the plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance were taken from appellant, the same were forwarded to
the regional crime laboratory office for qualitative examination where
the specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.43
In view of the foregoing, the allegation of appellant that the
apprehending officers failed to complywith the mandates of Section
21, particularly paragraph 1, of R.A. No. 9165 has no basis. In
addition to this, jurisprudence states that "the phrase marking upon
immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest
police station or office of the apprehending team."44 Hence, the fact
that the seized plastic sachets were marked at the police station only
does not deviate from the elements required in the preservation of
the integrity of the seized drugs.
In any case, contrary to appellants claim, strict compliance with
Section 21, Article II ofRA 9165 is not necessary45"as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seizeditems are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team." Elaborating on the
provisions of R.A. No. 9165, Section 21 (a) of its IRR states:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control
of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant isserved; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that
noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
(Emphasis supplied)
Indeed, this Court has, in many casesheld that "while the chain of
custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, as it is almost
always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.The most important
factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused."46
In People v. Salonga,47 we held that "it is essential for the
prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or
recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in
court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering
exactitude for it to leadto a finding of guilt."48 That the substances
which were sent to the crime laboratory and examined by the
forensic chemical officer and found to be shabuwere the very same
substances which the police officers seized from appellant is proven
by the following excerpts from the testimony of SPO4 Benedicto:
[PROS. SANDOVAL] Mr[.] witness you said that aside from the one
heat sealed transparent plastic sachet which accused Reyman
Endaya y Laig sold to your poseur buyer in the evening of November
20, 2002 you also recovered eight (8) other sachets of shabu from
him after his arrest if you will be shown these nine (9) plastic sachets
of shabu can you identify the same? [SPO4 BENEDICTO] Yes sir.
Q: Can you distinguish in [sic] these nine (9) plastic sachets which
one was the subject matter ofthe buy bust operation and which of
those was taken from the possession of the accused after his arrest?
A: Yes sir
Q: How would you distinguish these specimens from each other?
A: My companion placed his markings on all the sachets sir.
Q: How about the one (1) plastic sachet which your poseur buyer
was able to buy from Reyman Endaya has it any distinguishing mark
also after his arrest?
A: There is a distinguishing mark sir.
Q: What was the distinguishing mark?
A: The sachet of shabu which was confiscated in [sic] the buy bust
operation was marked by burning two ends of the plastic sachet, sir.
Q: If you will be shown this [sic] specimen[s] can you identify them?
A: Yes sir.
Q: x x x will you please look at these specimens Mr. Witness and tell
this Honorable Court what relation has the specimens to the eight (8)
plastic sachets that were confiscated from accused Reyman Endaya
after his arrest?
A: These eight (8) sachets of shabu were confiscated when we
searched him sir.
xxxx
Q: How about the plastic sachet which accused Reyman Endaya
sold to your buyer in the buy bust operation?
A: This sachet which was burned on both two (2) corners
sir.49 (Emphasis supplied)
The foregoing narration was again supported by the statements of
PO2 Chavez in his testimony dated 1 September 2004. Thus:
[PROSECUTOR] When you returnedto the police station after
conducting the buy-bust operation, do you know the whereabouts of
that thing which was handed by Reyman Endaya to your poseur
buyer?
[PO2 CHAVEZ] Yes, sir.
Q: Where was it?
A: It is in my possession, sir.
Q: When did you take custody of that?
A: When we arrested Reyman Endayaat the place of the incident, he
handed it to me, sir.
Q: Who handed that thing to you?
A: The poseur buyer, sir.
Q: What is that thing?
A: The item which he was able to buy, the shabu, sir.
xxxx
Q: How about the sachet of shabu which your asset was able to buy
from Reyman Endaya and this sachet of shabu which was handed to
you at the place of the buy-bust operation. Can you identify that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How about the other eight (8) sachets which you recovered from
the wallet of Reyman Endaya at the police station. Can you identify
those eight (8) sachets?
A: Yes, sir.
xxxx
Q: Can you tell the Court which one of these nine (9) sachets was
the one bought by the poseur buyer from Reyman Endaya?
A: This one, sir. (Witness pointing to the sachet of shabu which was
previously marked as Exhibit H.)
Q; Why are you sure that this is the one that was bought by your
poseur buyer from Reyman Endaya?
A: I marked it and I burned a portion of the plastic sachet to
distinguish this specimen fromthe other sachets of shabu which were
confiscated from them [sic], sir.
Q: Which is the burned portion in this sachet, Mr. Witness?
A: Here, sir. (Witness pointing tothe burned corner of the plastic
sachet.)
xxxx
Q: How about the eight (8) sachets of shabu that were recovered by
you from the wallet of Reyman Endaya when you were already at the
police station. Can you recognize those eight (8) sachets of shabu?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I am showing to you these eight (8) sachets of shabu previously
marked as Exhibits "I," "J," "K," "L," "M," "N," "O" and "P" during the
testimony of SPO4 Muriel Benedicto. What relation has those eight
(8) sachets of shabu to those that you recovered from the wallet of
Reyman Endaya?
A: Those are the shabu which I was able to confiscate from his
wallet.
Q: Why do you say so?
A: Because of my initials, sir. (Witness pointing to the initials which
appear to be a figure "8"on the eight (8) sachets of shabu.
Q: In this sachet of shabu which your asset was able to buy from
Reyman Endaya, do you have any marking also here aside from the
burned corner of the plastic sachet?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What is that?
A: Here, sir. (Witness pointing to the marking which appears to be a
figure "8".)50
(Emphasis supplied)
The foregoing testimonies categorically demonstrate that the
evidence seized from appellant were the same ones tested,
introduced, and testified to in open court. Both SPO4 Benedicto and
PO2 Chavez were able to identify the drugs with certainty when
these were presented in court. In short, there is no question as to the
integrity of the evidence.51
Finally, in order to prove the unbroken chain of custody of the
prohibited drugs confiscated from appellant, the respective
testimonies of SPO4 Benedicto and PO2 Chavez establish that the
plastic sachet subject of the illegal sale was handed over by the
civilian asset acting as poseur buyer to PO2 Chavez while still at the
crime scene. PO2 Chavez continued to be in possession of the same
until they reached the police station where he accomplished the
marking thereof. The eight sachets of shabu in the wallet of
appellant, on the other hand, which were found by PO2 Chavez after
bodily searching the former at the police station, were likewise
marked by PO2 Chavez. Once marked, the itemswere turned over to
the police investigator and thereafter, a letter-request together with
the marked sachets was forwarded to the crime laboratory for
examination where the substances inside the plastic sachets tested
positive for shabu. These sachets, with their identifying marks still
intact, were then presented in court.
Based on the foregoing, the CA correctly ruled that the chain of
custody was unbroken, thereby ensuring the integrity of the corpus
delicti. Unless appellant can show that there was bad faith, ill will, or
tampering with the evidence, the presumption that the integrity of the
evidence has been preserved will be upheld. It is incumbent upon
appellant to show that the foregoing circumstances are attendant in
this case to overcome the presumption that the police officers
handled the seized drugs with regularity, and that they properly
performed their duties.52 As the CA correctly found, appellant failed
to discharge this burden.
II
Signature of appellant on "Receipt for Property Seized"
inadmissible in evidence
Appellant contends thathe was not assisted by a lawyer when he
signed the "Receipt for Property Seized;"therefore, the document
cannot be admitted in evidence against him as his act of signing the
same is a form of confession or admission.
We find merit in appellants contention. There is no showing in the
records of this case that appellant was assisted by a counsel when
he signed the "Receipt for Property Seized."
It is settled that the signature of an accused in the receipt of property
seized is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the
assistance of counsel. The signature of the accused on such a
receipt is a declaration against his interest and a tacit admission of
the crime charged;53 hence, the constitutional safeguard must be
observed.
Nevertheless, as aptly found by the CA, while it is true that appellant
signed the receipt of property seized without the assistance of a
counsel, the same only renders inadmissible the receipt
itself.54 Thus, according to the CA:
x x x the evidentiary value of the "Receipt of Property Seized" in the
present circumstances is irrelevant in light of the ample evidence
proving [appellants] guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As [w]e have
earlier stated, the prosecution was able to prove that a valid buy-bust
operation was conducted to entrap [appellant]. The testimonies of
the arresting police officers clearly established [the illegal
possession] and that the sale of shabu by [appellant] was
consummated. The corpus delicti, which is the shabu, [were]
presented in court and confirmed by the other members of the buy-
bust team and they have acknowledged that they were the same
drugs subject of that particular buy-bust operation [and subsequent
body search on [appellant].55
III
Sachets of shabu not fruits of poisonous tree; hence,
admissible in evidence against appellant
Appellant continued to crave for acquittal claiming that, assuming
without conceding that he had in factsold and possessed the plastic
sachets of shabu, they cannot be admitted in evidence for being
fruits of a poisonous tree, having been obtained after an unlawful
arrest and search.1wphi1 Appellants insistence on the illegalityof
his warrantless arrest lacks merit. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court allows a warrantless arrest under any of the following
circumstances:
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful A peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
In this case, the arrest of appellantwas effected under paragraph (a)
or what is termed "in flagrante delicto."56 For a warrantless arrest of
an accused caught in flagrante delictounder paragraph (a) of the
afore-quoted Rule, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be
arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime;
and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of
the arresting officer.57
Here, SPO4 Benedicto, SPO2 Babadilla, and PO2 Chavez
personally witnessed the exchange between appellant and the
poseur-buyer of the marked money and the plastic sachet containing
a white crystalline substance which subsequently tested positive for
shabu.At the time he was arrested, therefore, appellant was clearly
committing a crime in full view of the buy-bust team. As held by the
CA:
Because [appellant] had been caught in flagrante delictoby the the CA properly sentenced appellant to suffer imprisonment of 12
apprehending police officers, they, as the arresting officers were years and one day, as minimum, to 20 years, asmaximum, and fined
duty- bound to apprehend the culprit immediately and to search him him P300,000.00, since the said penalties are within the range of
for anything that may be used as proof of the commission of the penalties prescribed by the law.62
crime. The search, being an incident of a lawful arrest, needed no
warrant for its validity.58 WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04872 dated 11 May 2012 is
IV hereby AFFIRMED.
Penalties
SO ORDERED.
Pursuant to Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is punishable by life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) to
Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00), regardless of the quantity or
purity of the drug involved.

However, since the imposition of the death penalty has been

prohibited by R.A. No. 9346,59 only the penalties of life imprisonment
and fine may be imposed.60 The RTC and the CA, therefore,
correctly imposed the penalties of life imprisonment and a fine in the
amount of P500,000.00 on appellant in Criminal Case No. 0099-
2003.

Illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand, is

penalized under Section 11(3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty(20) years,
plus a fine ranging from three hundred thousand pesos
(P300,000.00) to four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) if the
quantity involved is less than five grams.

Herein appellant was charged withand found to be guilty of illegal

possession of eight (8) plastic sachets of shabu having a total weight
of 0.32 gram in Criminal Case No. 0098-2003. Following the
provisions of R.A. No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended, "if the offense is punished by any other
law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the
maximum fixed by said law and the minimum shall not be less than
the minimum term prescribed by the same."61 Hence, the RTC and
People of the Philippines vs. MARIETTA PATUNGAN y PULGA et.
al March 14, 2001
Facts:
Respondents is being accused of were charged with criminal case for
killing Alejandro Patungan, the husband of Marietta Patungan, who is
one of the accused. The criminal charge arise from the extra judicial
confession of Elmerto Pulga linking his sister Marietta and his cousin
Edgar Acebuche respectively as the master mind and the co-
perpetrator of the crime. However, Elmerto contradicted his
confession and alleged that he was not guilty and he was only forced
to confess because of the physical violence the policemen inflicted on
him in the open court. The respondents questions the validity of the
decision of the lower court against them who relied entirely on the
extrajudicial confession of Elmerto. They content that the confession
was not voluntary and he was not assisted by counsel from the time
he entered into custodial investigation rendering his confession
inadmissible as evidence.
polices claim of voluntary surrender and places in serious doubt the
voluntariness of Pulgas extra-judicial confession. We also note from
the above testimonies that it was only after appellant Pulga verbally
confessed at the police precinct, without the assistance of counsel,
when he was brought to the IBP office allegedly for the actual
transcription of his confession in writing in the presence of a lawyer.
Said lawyer admitted that he was working on an appeal in another
case two to three meters away from the police investigator who was
then taking Pulgas statement. He stated that he was not totally
concentrated on the appealed case because he could still hear the
investigation being conducted then. [28] Villacorte testified that while
he was taking Pulgas statement the IBP lawyer was working on
something else using two other tables four meters apart. [29] The
mere presence of a lawyer is not sufficient compliance with the
constitutional requirement of assistance of counsel. Assistance of
counsel must be effective, vigilant and independent. [30] A counsel
who could just hear the investigation going on while working on
another case hardly satisfies the minimum requirements of effective
assistance of counsel.

Issue:

Whether or not the extra-judicial confession of Elmerto is admissible

as evidence?

Held:

An extra-judicial confession to be admissible in evidence must be

express and voluntarily executed in writing with the assistance of an
independent and competent counsel. Contrary to PO3 Villacortes
assertion that Pulga was taken into custody on August 10, 1994, the
police officer who actually took all three appellants into custody, SPO2
Orlando Gacute, testified that the appellants were all invited to the
police station on August 9, 1994 and that they were all subjected to
custodial investigation without counsel. Villacorte himself admitted
that Pulga at first did not want to confess and pointed to another
suspect as the perpetrator of the crime. This statement negates the
PP. OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. NERIO SUELA y HEMBRA,
EDGAR SUELA y HEMBRA and EDGARDO BATOCAN
G.R. No. 134288-89 January 15, 2002
FACTS: On or about the 26th day of July 1995, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the accused, conspiring, confederating with one another,
and mutually helping one another, by means of force upon things,
did then and there willfully and feloniously rob one Nilo Rosas by
barging into the door of said house and once inside, took the
following: a colored TV, 3 cameras, assorted jewelries, and cash
money, all amounting to P657,000.00. On the occasion of the said
robbery, the accused with intent to kill, attacked, assaulted, and
employed personal violence upon Geronimo Gabilo by stabbing him,
which were the direct and immediate cause of his untimely demise.
Sometime thereafter, Edgar Suela contacted Rosas executive
secretary, telling her that if Rosas will agree, he will relay information
as to the identity and whereabouts of those responsible for Gabilos
death. He was willing to exchange this written information for
P200,000.00. An entrapment ensued and this effected his arrest.
While under detention, the Suelas expressed their desire to give an
extrajudicial confession. Hence, they were brought to the IBP for the
taking down of their confessions.
The trial court held that the appellants had been assisted by
competent and independent counsel during the execution of their
extrajudicial confessions. The letter of Nerio Suela addressed to
Director Rosas asking him for forgiveness as well as the discovery of
the stolen TV set and knife in the formers house, further convinced
his guilt. Finding the presence of one aggravating circumstance
(disguise) with no mitigating circumstance, the trial court sentenced
them to death.
Hence, this automatic review of the Decision.
ISSUE: The following errors are alleged:
I. The trial court erred in considering batocans
extrajudicial confession as admissible evidenc against
him;
II. The trial court erred in admitting and appreciating the
wristwatch as evidence against Batocan;
III. The trial court erred in convicting Batocan of robbery
with Homicide;
IV. The court erred in considering the extrajudicial
confessions of the Suelas as admissible against them;
V. The court erred in considering the Suelas of robbery with
homicide.
RULING:
With respect to Batocan, he did not finish first year high school. He
was interviewed before he gave his confession for around five
minutes. After this initial interview with Atty. Rous, counsel just
listened nonchalantly to the questions propounded by the police and
to the answers given by Batocan. Atty. Rous attention even seemed
divided for while he was attending the custodial investigation, he was
also looking over another paperwork on his desk.
In view of these, the court is not convinced that Batocans
extrajudicial confession was obtained without violating his
constitutional rights.
As to the Suelas, Atty. Sansano did not understand the exact nature
of appellants rights to counsel and to remain silent during their
custodial investigations. He viewed a refusal to answer as an
obstruction in the investigation. Moreover, when he interviewed
appellants, he did not even bother to find out the gist of their
proposed statements in order to apprise them of the nature and
consequences of their extrajudicial confessions. Clearly and sadly,
appellants were not accorded competent and independent counsel
whom they could rely on to look after their interests.
As to the admissibility of the wristwatch, it is of limited probative
value as it was taken without a search warrant and not as an incident
of a valid arrest. It is clearly a fruit of a poisonous tree and as such,
could not be admitted and appreciated against the accused.

As to Nerio Suelas letter to Director Rosas, this was written while

Nerio was no longer under custodial investigation. In open court, he
admitted having written it. The fact that he was not assisted by
counsel when he wrote it will not make the letter inadmissible in
evidence.

Even excluding the wristwatch and the written extrajudicial

confessions, there is still material evidence on record which prove
beyond reasonable doubt the commission of robbery with homicide.

While under the new rules, an aggravating circumstance that is NOT

alleged in the information CANNOT be appreciated in determining
the criminal liability of the accused, the rules do not prevent its
appreciation for the purpose of determining civil liability.

The appeal is partially granted and modified. The RTC decision is

affirmed but the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua. The award
of civil indemnities is also affirmed. Edgar Suela is acquitted for the
separate crime of simple robbery.
People vs. Labtan [GR 127493, 8 December 1999] First Division, sworn Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 27 ) Narratives (Berne Guerrero)
Puno (J): 4 concur statement which he repudiated during the trial. Feliciano appealed.

Facts: On 28 March 1993, at more or less 10:30 p.m. while inside a Issue: Whether the counselling of Atty. Pepito Chavez to Feliciano
motor vehicle in the national highway at Barangay Agusan up to the cured the initial lack of counsel.
road at Camaman-an, all of Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, Henry
Feliciano y Lagura and Orlando Labtan y Daquihon took away, Held: Feliciano had been denied of his right to have a competent and
through intimdation or violence, cash amounting to P720.00, pioneer independent counsel when he was questioned in the Cagayan de Oro
stereo, booster and twitters owned by and belonging to Roman S. City Police Station. SPO1 Alfonso Cuarez testified that he started
Mercado, and a Seiko Diver wristwatch owned by Ismael P. Ebon, all questioning Feliciano at 8:00 a.m. of 22 April 1993 regarding his
in all amounting to P10,800.00. Later on, on or about 16 April 1993, at involvement in the killing of jeepney driver Florentino Bolasito,
about 2:30 p.m., more or less, at Buntong, Camaman-an, Cagayan de notwithstanding the fact that he had not been apprised of his right to
Oro City, Philippines, Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, and Jonelto Labtan counsel. Feliciano had been subjected to custodial investigation
robbed Florentino Bolasito of P30 in cash money. In the course without a counsel; inasmuch as when SPO1 Cuarez investigated
thereof, Orlando and Jonelto Labtan stabbed Bolasito to death. On 23 Feliciano, the latter was already a suspect in the killing of jeepney
April 1993, an information was filed against Feliciano, Orlando Labtan, driver Bolasito. Further, Atty. Chavez did not provide the kind of
and Jonelto Labtan charging them with robbery with homicide (as per counselling required by the Constitution. He did not explain to
16 April 1993 incident). Subsequently, another information dated 20 Feliciano the consequences of his action that the sworn statement
May 1993 was filed against Feliciano and Orlando Labtan charging can be used against him and that it is possible that he could be found
them with highway robbery (as per 28 March 1993 incident). Only guilty and sent to jail. Furthermore, Atty. Chavezs independence as
Feliciano pleaded not guilty to the two charges. Orlando Labtan had counsel is suspect he is regularly engaged by the Cagayan de Oro
escaped the Maharlika Rehabilitation and Detention Center in City Police as counsel de officio for suspects who cannot avail the
Carmen, Cagayan de Oro City where he was detained while Jonelto services of counsel. He even received money from the police as
Labtan has eluded arrest. The two cases were tried together. After payment for his services
trial, the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25 found
Feliciano guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal by direct
participation in the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced him
to reclusion perpetua and to indemnify the offended party (the heirs of
Florentino Bolasito) the sum of P50,000.00 and to pay the offended
party the sum of P35,000.00 representing funeral expenses and to pay
the cost. The trial court also found Feliciano guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of highway robbery, and sentenced him to an
indeterminate penalty of 12 years of prision mayor as the minimum
term to 14 years, 8 months of reclusion temporal in its minimum period
as the maximum term and to indemnify Roman S. Mercado the sum
of P8,000.00, representing the value of the P700.00 cash, stereo,
booster, and twitter and to indemnify Ismael Ebon the sum of
P2,500.00, the value of the Seiko Wrist watch divested from him and
to pay the cost. The trial court convicted Feliciano on the basis of his
People vs. Samus [GR 135957-58, 17 September 2002] En Banc,
Panganiban (J): 14 concur
Facts: Guillermo Samus was a farmer, tilling and living in the land of
Miguel Completo at Barangay Niugan, Cabuyao, Laguna. The victims,
62 year old Dedicacion Balisi and her grandson, 6 year old John Ardee
Balisi, were the neighbors of Samus father at San Ramon de
Canlubang, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna. At 4:20 P.M. on 2
September 1996, Senior Police (SP) Inspector Rizaldy H. Garcia was
at his office at the 4th PNP Criminal Investigation Group Regional
Office at Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba, Laguna when he received an
order from his superior to investigate the murder of the two victims.
Their office had received a telephone call from a local barangay official
informing them of the victims deaths. Arriving at the victims residence
at Block 8, Lot 6 at San Ramon, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba, Garcia
and his team conducted an investigation, making a sketch of the
relative positions of the victims, lifting fingerprints from the crime scene
and taking pictures. Thereafter, an investigation report was prepared
by Garcia and signed by his superior, Colonel Pedro Tango. The
investigators likewise found a pair of maong pants, a white T-shirt, a
handkerchief and dirty slippers in the bathroom and roof of the house.
A pair of earrings worn by Dedicacion Balisi was likewise reported
missing from her body by her daughter, Nora B. Llorera. The victims
bodies were brought to the Funeraria Seerez de Mesa in Calamba.
On that same day, Ponciano Pontanos, Jr., then a resident of
Barangay Niugan, Cabuyao and an acquaintance of Samus,
happened to meet Samus at Sammy Pachecas house in the same
barangay where Samus asked Ponciano to accompany him to
Poncianos wife to pawn a pair of earrings. Poncianos wife was mad
at first but upon Poncianos prodding, gave Samus P300.00 with no
interest. The earrings were placed in a jewelry box; thereafter, Samus
received another P250.00. At 6:00 P.M. on 10 September 1996, Major
Jose Pante of the Criminal Investigation Group received information
that Samus was the principal suspect in the killing of the 2 victims and
that he was sighted inside the residence of spouses Rolly and Josie
Vallejo at Barangay Macabling, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. He then formed
and led a team composed of SPO3 Galivo, Intelligence Commission
Officer Casis and SPO3 Mario Bitos. Arriving at the site at past 7:00
P.M., the team, accompanied by local barangay authorities, asked
permission from the Vallejo spouses to enter the house, which was
granted. Shortly thereafter, they heard loud footsteps on the roof.
Rushing outside, they saw Samus crawling on the roof. They ordered
him to stop, but he suddenly jumped from the roof and landed hard on
the ground, sustaining an injury on his ankle and bruises on his left
and right forearm. At that point, the police team closed in on Samus
who, while trembling and shaking, admitted the killings upon a query
from Rolly Vallejo. Samus was brought to the Camp Vicente Lim PNP
Investigation Office where he was informed of his constitutional rights
by SPO3 Alex Malabanan. In the morning of 11 September 1996,
Samus, assisted by Atty. Arturo Juliano, gave his statement admitting
the killings. SPO3 Malabanan also took the statements of tricycle
driver Rafael Baliso, the victims relatives Salvacion and Mona Balisi
and witness Mary Arguelles, who saw Samus enter the house of
Dedicacion Balisi. On the same Constitutional Law II, 2005 ( 28 )
Narratives (Berne Guerrero) day, PNP Fingerprint Examiner Reigel
Allan Sorra took fingerprint samples from Samus. His prints exactly
matched with a set of prints found at the crime scene. Later that day,
SPO3 Mario Bitos was able to recover the pawned earrings from
Ponciano who turned them over to SPO3 Malabanan. Two separate
Informations were filed on 27 November 1996, charging Samus (in
Criminal Case 5015-96-C) with homicide for the death of one
Dedicacion Balisi y Soriano (61 years old), and (in Criminal Case
5016-96-C) with murder for the death of one John Ardee Balisi y
Soriano (6 years old). When arraigned on 28 May 1997, Samus,
assisted by his counsel de oficio, pleaded not guilty. In due course,
the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, Branch 36, found
Samus guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide
(Criminal Case 5015-96-C), sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of 10 years and 1 day of Prision Mayor as minimum up
to 20 years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum, and ordered him to
indemnify the heirs of Dedicacion Balisi the amount of P50,000.00 for
her death and another P50,000.00 as and for moral and actual
damages and cost of suit. The trial court also found Samus guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder (Criminal Case 5016-
96-C), sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death, and ordered him
to indemnify the heirs of John Ardee Balisi the amount of P50,000.00
for his death and another P50,000.00 as and for moral and actual
damages and cost of suit. Hence, the automatic review.
Issue: Whether uncounselled admission are absolutely inadmissible.
Held: After being illegally arrested, Samus was not informed of his
constitutional rights to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel. Hence, any admission elicited from him by the
law enforcers during custodial investigation are normally inadmissible
in evidence. In their affidavits, the police officers readily admitted that
Samus was subjected to a preliminary interview. Yet, during their
examination in open court, they tried to skirt this issue by stating that
it was only the media that had questioned Samus, and that they were
merely present during the interview. However, an examination of the
testimonies of the three law enforcers show the folly of their crude
attempts to camouflage inadmissible evidence. In the absence of
testimony from any of the media persons who allegedly interviewed
Samus, the uncertainties and vagueness about how they questioned
and led him to his confession lead us to believe that they themselves
investigated Samus and elicited from him uncounselled admissions.
This fact is clearly shown by the Affidavits they executed on 11
September 1997, as well as by their testimonies on cross-
examination. Nonetheless, even if the uncounselled admission per se
may be inadmissible, under the present circumstances the Court
cannot rule it out because of Samus' failure to make timely objections.
Indeed, the admission is inadmissible in evidence under Article III,
Section 12(1) and (3) of the Constitution, because it was given under
custodial investigation and was made without the assistance of
counsel. However, the defense failed to object to its presentation
during the trial, with the result that the defense is deemed to have
waived objection to its admissibility. If only Samus had made a timely
objection to the admissibility of Pontaos testimony and the picture of
a pair of earrings together with the turnover receipt, which Samus
identified during his testimony, the prosecution could have been
warned of the need to present additional evidence to support its case.
To disregard unceremoniously a major portion of its case at this late
stage when it can no longer present additional evidence as substitute
for that which is now claimed to be inadmissible goes against
fundamental fairness