"Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj),

Section 26(b), and Section 28, Republic Act No. 9165."

Illegal Trading

De Lima vs Guerrero

FACTS: based on the allegations of the Information in Criminal Case No. 17-165, the Sandiganbayan has
the jurisdiction to try and hear the case against her. She posits that the Information charges her not with
violation of RA 9165 but with Direct Bribery-a felony within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan given her rank as the former Secretary of Justice with Salary Grade 31. For the
petitioner, even assuming that the crime described in the Information is a violation of RA 9165, the
Sandiganbayan still has the exclusive jurisdiction to try the case considering that the acts described in
the Information were intimately related to her position as the Secretary of Justice. Some justices of this
Court would even adopt the petitioner's view, declaring that the Information charged against the
petitioner is Direct Bribery.

it is not indispensable for a co-conspirator to take a direct part in every act of the crime. A conspirator
need not even know of all the parts which the others have to perform, 81 as conspiracy is the common
design to commit a felony; it is not participation in all the details of the execution of the crime. 82 As
long as the accused, in one way or another, helped and cooperated in the consummation of a felony,
she is liable as a co-principal. 83 As the Information provides, De Lima's participation and cooperation
was instrumental in the trading of dangerous drugs by the NBP inmates.

By "using electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, email, mobile or landlines, two-
way radios, internet, instant messengers and chat rooms," the Illegal Trading can be remotely
perpetrated away from where the drugs are actually being sold; away from the subject of the illegal sale.
With the proliferation of digital technology coupled with ride sharing and delivery services, Illegal
Trading under RA 9165 can be committed without getting one's hand on the substances or knowing and
meeting the seller or buyer. To require the elements of Illegal Sale (the identities of the buyer, seller, the
object and consideration, in Illegal Trade) would be impractical.

The same may be said of the second mode for committing Illegal Trading, or trading by "acting as a
broker" in transactions involved in Illegal Trafficking. In this instance, the accused may neither have
physical possession of the drugs nor meet the buyer and seller and yet violate RA 9165. As pointed out
by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, as early as 1916, jurisprudence has defined a broker as one who is simply a
middleman, negotiating contracts relative to property with which he has no custody
People vs Lim

chain of custody as - 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 of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition.

Thus, the links in the chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover
of the seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the
illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and ( 4) the
turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.

No barangay official