People v. Estrada GR# 164368-69, April 2, 2009, J.
Brion signing the documents as Jose Velarde related to the opening of the trust account, the
FACTS: On April 4, 2001, an Information for plunder was filed with the Sandiganbayan
against respondent Estrada, among other accused. A separate Information for illegal use
of alias, was likewise filed against him. In the information, it was alleged that on or about
04 February 2000, in the City of Manila, then President Estrada without having been duly
authorized, judicially or administratively, taking advantage of his position and committing
the offense in relation to office, i.e., in order to CONCEAL THE ill-gotten wealth HE
ACQUIRED during his tenure and his true identity as THE President of the Republic of the
Philippines, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally REPRESENT HIMSELF AS
JOSE VELARDE IN SEVERAL TRANSACTIONS AND use and employ the SAID alias Jose
Velarde which IS neither his registered name at birth nor his baptismal name, in signing
documents with Equitable PCI Bank and/or other corporate entities.
Estrada was subsequently arrested on the basis of a warrant of arrest that the
Sandiganbayan issued. A Special Division in the Sandiganbayan was made to try, hear, and
decide the charges of plunder and related against respondent Estrada. At the trial, the
People presented testimonial and documentary evidence to prove the allegations of the
Informations for plunder, illegal use of alias, and perjury.
After the People rested in all three cases, the defense moved to be allowed to file a
demurrer to evidence in these cases. In its Joint Resolution, the Sandiganbayan only
granted the defense leave to file demurrers in illegal use of alias and perjury. The
Sandiganbayan ruled that the people failed to present evidence that proved Estradas
commission of the offense.
ISSUE: Whether the court a quo gravely erred and abused its discretion in dismissing
Crim. Case No. 26565 and in applying R.A. No. 1405 as an exception to the illegal use of
alias punishable under Commonwealth Act No. 142
HELD: No. The Sandiganbayan position that the rule in the law of libel that mere
communication to a third person is publicity does not apply to violations of CA No. 142.
In order to be held liable for a violation of CA No. 142, the user of the alias must have
held himself out as a person who shall publicly be known under that other name. In
other words, the intent to publicly use the alias must be manifest. The presence of
Lacquian and Chua when Estrada signed as Jose Velarde and opened Trust Account No. C-
163 does not necessarily indicate his intention to be publicly known henceforth as Jose
Velarde. Thus, Estrada could not be said to have intended his signing as Jose Velarde to be
for public consumption by the fact alone that Lacquian and Chua were also inside the
room at that time. The same holds true for Estradas alleged representations with
Ortaliza and Dichavez, assuming the evidence for these representations to be
admissible. All of Estradas representations to these people were made in privacy and in
secrecy, with no iota of intention of publicity.
Bank deposits under R.A. No. 1405 (the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law) are statutorily
protected or recognized zones of privacy. Given the private nature of Estradas act of
People cannot claim that there was already a public use of alias when Ocampo and Curato
witnessed the signing. Petition was denied.
People v. Ulama GR# 186530, December 14, 2011, J. Leonardo-de Castro
FACTS: Having received confidential information from an informant about the drug
trafficking activities of appellant, Barangay Chairman Rodolfo Doromal convened a group
of Makati Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) operatives to plan and carry out a buy-bust
operation. The team proceeded to the corner of Dapitan and San Nicholas Streets,
Barangay Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City where according to the informant, appellant was
conducting her illegal trade. MADAC operative Edison Bill was designated as poseur-buyer
who kept the marked buy-bust money. After buying shabu from alias Kakay, they disclosed
their identity as police officer and MADAC operatives and effected the arrest of appellant,
Jerrylyn Bernal y Ingco @ Jane and Robert Mercado y Taylo @ Robert.
PO2 Rodrigo Igno recovered from the left pocket of the short pants of appellant. MADAC
operative Antonio Banzon seized from the right hand of Robert Mercado, three (3) small
transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu. Likewise, MADAC operative Leo
Sese seized three (3) sachets containing suspected shabu from Janes right hand when the
latter tried to throw it away.Upon arrest, appellant and the two other accused were
informed of the nature of their arrest as well as their constitutional rights. The drug was
later submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office for appropriate examination. The
suspects were also made to undergo drug test.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges when she was arraigned. The RTC convicted
appellant of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 but, at the same
time, acquitted her of the charge of violation of Section 15, Article II of the same statute.
The appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the
confiscated items. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the confiscated
items
HELD: No. It is settled in jurisprudence that the elements necessary for the prosecution of
illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment 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 records would indicate that, immediately after appellants arrest and in her presence,
poseur-buyer Bill marked the plastic sachet with the markings NAU. This piece of
evidence was turned over directly to the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) under the Office of
the Criminal Investigation Division of the Makati City Police Station where it was included
in the items subject to laboratory examination by the PNP Crime Laboratory. In the instant
case, no clear and convincing evidence to support the defense of frame-up was presented
by appellant. Neither did she put forward in her pleadings or testimony any imputation or
proof of ill motive on the part of the arresting police officers.