PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v.

EDUARDO DELA CRUZ Y

GUMABAT @ "EDDIE", Appellant.
G.R. No. 205414, April 04, 2016

FACTS:

Eduardo dela Cruz was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5
of Article II of RA No. 9165. On buy bust operation, the accused sell to poseur-buyer,
one (1) Blister pack with label "Valium" containing Ten (10) round blue tablets which
after a qualitative examination, gave positive result to the test of diazepam, a
dangerous drug. On his defense, he was not selling the dangerous drugs instead he
was placing bets on a karera. He thought that he was only being accused of illegal
gambling for playing cara y cruz.

The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime charged. CA sustained the conviction.

ISSUE:

WON Court of Appeals gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite

non-compliance by the arresting officers of the requirements for the proper custody
of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. no. 9165.

WON the honorable court of appeals gravely erred in convicting the accused-
appellant despite the prosecution's failure to prove the identity of the corpus delicti.

RULING:

To secure a conviction for the crime of illegal sale of regulated or prohibited drugs,
the following elements under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 should be
satisfactorily proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What
is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
evidence of corpus delicti.

The Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently proved the preceding requisites
warranting appellant's conviction.

there is overwhelming evidence that he was actually committing a crime in the

presence of the police officers who arrested him without a warrant. To repeat,
straightforward and unwavering testimonies were presented by the prosecution
narrating, in detail, how the police officers personally witnessed the sale by
appellant of the dangerous drug, being actual participants of the buy-bust
operation. Indeed, a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, in which the
violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the
operation are not only authorized, but duty-bound, to apprehend the violator and to
search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of
the crime. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's
plain denial of the offense charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing
evidence, must simply fail.

LUIS DERILO y GEPOLEO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Respondent
G.R. No. 190466, APRIL 18, 2016

FACTS:

Police officers, through a search warrant seized the residence of Leo Derilo. Police
officers went to the bedroom of the accused as place indicated in search warrant
and during the search, they recovered twelve (12) plastic sachets10 inside a
matchbox, each containing white crystalline substance. The police officers also
recovered suspected drug paraphernalia. The prosecution charged the petitioner
with violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA No. 9165, for possession of
twelve (12) plastic sachets containing 0.3485 gram of shabu and for possession of
drug paraphernalia.

The RTC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes
charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE:

WON the search was unlawful and evidence which may have been obtained during
the search is absolutely inadmissible for being the "fruit of the poisonous tree."

WON chain of custody is broken

RULING:

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

The marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or

related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary
value. The SC ruled that the prosecution failed to establish that the drug specimens
presented in court are those allegedly seized from the petitioner for marking the
sachets a day after the items were seized.
In addition, the prosecutions evidence is seriously lacking in details as to the links
in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were confiscated up
to the time they were presented in court.

Given that the prosecution failed to prove the indispensable element of corpus
delicti, the petitioner must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Likewise, there is no evidence showing that the aluminum foil, tube, and lighters
found in the petitioner's house were fit or intended for introducing any dangerous
drug into the body. The prosecution did not bother to show that there were traces of
shabu on any of these alleged drug paraphernalia. In fact, it appears that the only
evidence that the prosecution offered to prove this charge is the existence of the
seized items by themselves.

Acquitted