Gem Martle Pacson Class Student No.

28

Criminal Law 2; SPL RA 9165; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

People vs. Aruta, [GR No. 120915], (April 3, 1998)

FACTS: In the morning of 13 Dec 1988, the law enforcement officers received information from
an informant named Benjie that a certain Aling Rosa would be leaving for Baguio City on
14 Dec 1988 and would be back in the afternoon of the same day carrying with her a large
volume of marijuana; At 6:30 in the evening of 14 Dec 1988, Aruta alighted from a Victory
Liner Bus carrying a travelling bag even as the informant pointed her out to the law enforcement
officers; NARCOM officers approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents;
When asked by Lt. Abello about the contents of her travelling bag, she gave the same to him;
When they opened the same, they found dried marijuana leaves; Aruta was then brought to the
NARCOM office for investigation.

ISSUE: Whether or not the conducted search and seizure is constitutional.

RULING: The SC ruled in favor of Aruta and has noted that some drug traffickers are being
freed due to technicalities. Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither was she about
to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Aruta was merely crossing the street and was
not acting in any manner that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to
suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime. It was only when the informant pointed
to Aruta and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as
the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended Aruta were it not for the furtive
finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by the evidence on record, there was no
reason whatsoever for them to suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime, except for
the pointing finger of the informant. The SC could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear
violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was
there any semblance of any compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and
warrantless arrests. Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a
warrantless search of Arutas bag, there being no probable cause and the accused-appellant not
having been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically
follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful arrest.
The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must perforce operate in
favor of accused-appellant. As such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against
accused-appellant for these are fruits of a poisoned tree and, therefore, must be rejected,
pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.

Gem Martle Pacson Class Student No. 28

Criminal Law 2; SPL RA 9165; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

People vs. Angeles, [GR No. 95761-62], (Feb. 2, 1993)

FACTS: Angeles was charged before the RTC of Davao, in two separate informations, with (a)
illegal possession of marijuana in violation of Section 8, Article II of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972 (Republic Act No. 6425, as amended); and (b) illegal sale of marijuana in violation of
Section 4 Article II of the said Act. Angeles pleaded not guilty to both charges when arraigned.
Angeles contends that he was a victim of a frame-up and, for this reason, ascribes error on the
part of the trial court in disregarding the evidence submitted by the defense and in convicting
him of the offenses charged. He insists that it is unbelievable that he would sell the prohibited
drug to Guillen since he personally knew the latter to be a NARCOM agent.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of Angeles is tenable.

HELD: NO. Appellant's assertion that he would not have dealt with Sgt. Guillen since he knew
him to be a law enforcer is equally untenable for, aside from the fact that Guillen firmly refuted
such allegation on rebuttal, what is of importance here is not an existing familiarity between the
poseur-buyer and the seller but their agreement concerning the sale of marijuana and their acts
pursuant thereto constituting the sale and delivery of the illicit drug.
Gem Martle Pacson Class Student No. 28
Criminal Law 2; SPL RA 9165; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

People vs. Agulay, [GR No. 181747], (Sept. 26, 2008)

FACTS: Agulay was charged in an Information before the RTC of Quezon City with violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Agulay maintains that his arrest was illegal, and that the
subsequent seizure of shabu allegedly taken from him is inadmissible as evidence against him.
He also claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, since the
prosecution failed to show all the essential elements of an illegal sale of shabu.

ISSUE: Whether or not Agulay was arrested in a legitimate buy-bust operation

HELD: Yes. Considering that the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation is beyond question, the
subsequent warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure, were permissible. The search,
clearly being incident to a lawful arrest, needed no warrant for its validity. Thus, contrary to
accused-appellant's contention, the contraband seized from him, having been obtained as a result
of the buy-bust operation to which the defense failed to impute any irregularity, was correctly
admitted in evidence.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid
and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a
crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the
offense.
Gem Martle Pacson Class Student No. 28

Criminal Law 2; SPL RA 9165; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

People vs. Alivio, [GR No. 177771], (May 30, 2011)

FACTS: The RTC convicted Arielito Alivio y Oliveros and Ernesto dela Vega (collectively
referred to as appellants) of violating Sections 5 (illegal sale of shabu), 11(illegal possession of
shabu) and 12(illegal possession of drug paraphernalia), Article II of RA 9165. The RTC relied
on the presumption of regularity in the buy-bust operation and the lack of improper motive on
the part of the police officers. The RTC rejected the proferred denial and frame-up as defenses as
they are inherently easy to concoct, and found that the prosecution sufficiently established all the
elements of the crimes charged and the identity of the appellants as perpetrators.

The appellants appealed to the CA but the latter affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lower courts erred in evaluating the testimonial evidence when they
placed undue reliance on the presumption of regularity and the absence of improper motive on
the part of the police officers to perpetuate the claimed irregularities.

RULING: No. Although the presumption of regularity did not arise considering the evident
lapses the police committed in the prescribed procedures, we rule that the prosecutions evidence
sufficiently established all the elements of the three (3) crimes charged and the identity of the
appellants as the perpetrators. And although the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1),
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, we find that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team under the
chain of custody rule. the prosecutions evidence clearly established an unbroken link in the
chain of custody, thus removing any doubt or suspicion that the shabu and drug paraphernalia
had been altered, substituted or otherwise tampered with. The unbroken link in the chain of
custody also precluded the possibility that a person, not in the chain, ever gained possession of
the seized evidence.
Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody
of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody
[was] of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition

Gem Martle Pacson Class Student No. 28

Criminal Law 2; SPL RA 9165; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

People vs. Kamad, [GR No. 174198], (Jan. 19, 2010)

FACTS: On October 16, 2002 the Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Unit of the
Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig received information from an asset that a certain
Zaida was selling shabu at Purok IV, Silverio Compound, Paranaque City. At 10 PM of
October 16, 2002, SPO2 Sanchez, poseur-buyer, gave marked PHP 300 bills to accused-appellant
for the purchase of shabu. Upon receipt of the item, Zaida Kamad and her boyfriend, Leo, were
arrested.

The RTC of Paranaque City found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165 for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of methamphetamine HCL. On
appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: Whether or not Kamad is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article
II of RA 9165 for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of shabu
RULING: No, the Court ruled that in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, that the
following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction took place, (2) corpus
delicti presented as evidence. Records showed that the prosecution through SPO2 Sanchez,
established the sale of the prohibited drug shabu by accused-appellant but the RTC and the CA
failed to notice the defects in the prosecutions case such as (1) lapse in implementing Section
21, Article II of RA 9165 in the handling of the seized shabu and (2) failure of police to comply
with the chain of custody rule.

For violations of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, no inventory and photographing of seized
drugs was done at the place of arrest as well as the presence of the accused as it was being done
nor a representative of the media, the DOJ, and any elected pubic official who will confirm that
evidence seized were as they were found. Neither was it established by the prosecution why such
thing were not followed by presenting (1) justifiable cause and (2) preserving the integrity and
evidentiary value of seized evidence as required by the IRR of RA 9165 Section 21-A.

For non-compliance of the chain of custody rule, which requires the documentation and
description of evidence as it is being processed along the system was neither complied.

Court reverses and sets aside the decision of the CA affirming the final judgment of RTC Branch
259 of Paranaque City for the illegal sale of shabu of accused-appellant. Zaida Kamad is hereby
acquitted and ordered released from detention.

Gem Martle Pacson Class Student No. 28

Criminal Law 2; SPL RA 9165; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

People vs. Ventura, [GR No. 184957], (Oct. 27, 2009)

FACTS: Grace Ventura seeks her acquittal, praying for the reversal of the judgment of
conviction in the illegal drugs case. The defense claims that the appellate court committed
serious error in (a) finding the existence of an unbroken chain in the custody of the shabu subject
of the buy-bust operation as well as its evidentiary value; and (b) ruling that non-compliance
with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal.
ISSUE: Whether or not non-compliance with the procedure renders the seizure and custody over
the items void and invalid.

RULING: No. non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.
In prosecutions involving the illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof that the transaction
or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated
drug as evidence. For conviction of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited or regulated drugs, the
following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. The testimonial and
documentary pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against
accused-appellant establish the presence of these elements.

Clearly, the purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules is centered on the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

Gem Martle Pacson Class Student No. 28

Criminal Law 2; SPL RA 9165; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

People vs. Aguilar, [GR No. 191396], (April 17, 2013)

FACTS: Aguilar argues that the RTC erred in convicting her as the prosecution failed to
establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In support of such assertion, Aguilar points out the
fact that the police officers failed to follow the protocol in the custody and control of seized
items due to the absence of an inventory and photographs of the confiscated drugs as required by
Republic Act No. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations. Aguilar further posits that she
should be acquitted for the reason that without the instigation of the informant the alleged
transaction involving the sale of shabu would not have transpired.

ISSUE: Whether or not the contention of Aguilar is tenable.

HELD: No. Despite the failure of the apprehending officers to make an inventory of and to
photograph the items seized from Aguilar, they were nevertheless able to prove that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the evidence had been preserved, the chain of custody of such items,
having been adequately established in the case at bar.
Gem Martle Pacson Class Student No. 28

Criminal Law 2; SPL RA 9165; Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

People vs. Dela Cruz, [GR No. 182348], (Nov.20, 2008)

FACTS: Accused-appellant claims that the presence of all the elements of the offense of
possession of dangerous drug was not proved beyond reasonable doubt since both actual and
constructive possessions were not proved. He asserts that the shabu was not found in his actual
possession, for which reason the prosecution was required to establish that he had constructive
possession over the shabu. He maintains that as he had no control and dominion over the drug or
over the place where it was found, the prosecution likewise failed to prove constructive
possession.
ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of
violation of section 11, Article II, RA 9165 despite the failure of the prosecution to establish the
chain of custody of the illegal drug allegedly found in his possession

RULING: Yes. There is no question that accused-appellant was not the owner of the nipa hut
that was subject of the buy-bust operation. He did not have dominion or control over the nipa
hut. Neither was accused-appellant a tenant or occupant of the nipa hut, a fact not disputed by the
prosecution. The target of the operation was Boy Bicol. Accused-appellant was merely a guest of
Boy Bicol. But in spite of the lack of evidence pinning accused-appellant to illegal possession of
drugs, the trial court declared the following:

It cannot be denied that when the accused was talking with Boy Bicol he knew that the shabu
was on the table with other items that were confiscated by the police operatives. The court
[surmises] that the accused and boy Bicol were members of a gang hiding in that nipa hut where
they were caught red-handed with prohibited items and dangerous [drugs].

The trial court cannot assume, based on the prosecutions evidence, that accused-appellant was
part of a gang dealing in illegal activities. Apart from his presence in Boy Bicols nipa hut, the
prosecution was not able to show his participation in any drug-dealing. He was not even in
possession of drugs in his person. He was merely found inside a room with shabu, not as the
rooms owner or occupant but as a guest. While he allegedly pointed a firearm at the buy-bust
team, the prosecution curiously failed to produce the firearm that accused-appellant supposedly
used.

The prosecution in this case clearly failed to show all the elements of the crime absent a showing
of either actual or constructive possession by the accused-appellant.

Since accused-appellant was not in possession of the illegal drugs in Boy Bicols nipa hut, his
subsequent arrest was also invalid.