People v Partoza, GR No.

182418, May 8, 2009

FACTS:
Partoza was apprehended by the San Mateo police during a buy-bust operation. RTC
found him guilty of one count of possession and another count sale of dangerous drug
(shabu). CA affirmed. On review, appellant questions the integrity of the evidence used
against him on the grounds of failure to mark the items seized from him immediately
and failure to observe the chain of custody as required under Section 21 of RA 9165.

ISSUE:
Whether the failure of the arresting officer to immediately inventory and photograph the
shabu in the presence of the accused as mandated by RA 9165 renders the evidence
inadmissible to him?

RULING:
YES. In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the
prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and
seller, the object, and the 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 or had actually taken place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.

In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must
be established beyond doubt.

In the case, it is indisputable that the procedures for the custody and disposition of
confiscated dangerous drugs in Section 21 of RA 9165 were not complied with. The
identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The apprehending officer did not mark the seized drugs immediately after he arrested
appellant in the latter's presence. Neither did he make an inventory and take a
photograph of the confiscated items in the presence of appellant. There was no
representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected public
official who participated in the operation and who were supposed to sign an inventory of
seized items and be given copies thereof. None of these statutory safeguards were
observed.
While the Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 is
not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team, yet these conditions were not met in the case. No explanation was
offered by the apprehending officer for his failure to observe the rule.
People v Padua, GR No. 174097, July 21, 2010

FACTS:
Two separate informations were filed before the RTC against appellant for illegal sale
and possession of shabu. RTC convicted appellant as charged, and CA affirmed.
Appellant asserts that the police officers failed to account for the chain of custody of the
seized items alleged to be shabu. He also argued that no surveillance was conducted
before the buy-bust operation.

ISSUE:
Whether prior surveillance is a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust
operation?

RULING:
NO. The conduct of an entrapment or buy-bust operation has no rigid or textbook
method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police carry out its
entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated
in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. The police officers may
decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.
People v Habana, GR No. 188900, March 5, 2010

FACTS:
Two separate informations were filed before the RTC against appellant for illegal sale
and possession of shabu. RTC convicted appellant as charged, and CA affirmed.
Habana points out that the prosecution’s failure to present at the trial the informant, the
investigating officer, and the forensic chemist militates against the trustworthiness of the
prosecution’s evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether the informant, forensic examiner and police investigator are indispensable
witnesses in a drugs case to establish the chain of custody over the substance seized
from the accused?

RULING:
NO. No rule requires the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every
person who had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of
prohibited drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to present in every case
belongs to the prosecutor, as long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was
clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to
identify properly the drugs seized.

The non-presentation of the informant cannot prejudice the prosecution’s theory of the
case. His testimony would merely be corroborative since the police officers who
witnessed everything already testified. Besides, as a rule, it is rarely that the prosecutor
would present the informant because of the need to hide his identity and preserve his
invaluable service to the police.

The prosecution did not deliberately omit the presentation of the forensic chemist who
examined the seized substance or the investigating officer who was assigned to the
case. As the trial court said in its decision, the prosecution wanted to present both as
witnesses but the parties chose instead to stipulate on the substance of their
testimonies.

However, the prosecution failed to show how the seized items changed hands, from
when the police officers seized them from Habana to the time they were presented in
court as evidence. The prosecution did not adduce evidence on what the investigator on
duty did with the seized articles, how these got to the laboratory technician, and how
they were kept before being adduced in evidence at the trial. Since the failure in this
case to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs compromised the
identity and integrity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes
charged against Habana, his acquittal is in order.
People v Santiago, GR No. 191061, February 9, 2011

FACTS:
After a buy-bust operation, police officer Esguerra turned over Santiago and the seized
sachet to the investigator. When the contents of the first and second sachets (with “@
Tisay” and “RPS” markings) were examined, these were confirmed to be shabu. A
confirmatory test also found Santiago positive for the use of shabu. RTC found Santiago
guilty of sale and use of dangerous drugs, as affirmed by CA.

ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the seized item
and its preservation from possible tampering?

RULING:
NO. Although the prosecution established through Esguerra the acts constituting the
crime charged in the drug-pushing case, it failed to provide proper identity of the
allegedly prohibited substance that the police seized from Santiago.

Esguerra testified that he seized a heat-sealed sachet of white substance from Santiago
and marked the sachet with "RPS" right in her presence. He claimed that he then
immediately submitted the specimen to the police crime laboratory for examination. But
the request for laboratory exam reveals that it was not Esguerra who delivered the
specimen to the crime laboratory. It appears that Esguerra gave it to a certain SPO3
Puno who in turn forwarded it to a certain PO2 Santos. No testimony covers the
movement of the specimen among these other persons. Consequently, the prosecution
was unable to establish the chain of custody of the seized item and its preservation from
possible tampering.

What is more, the prosecution failed to account for the whereabouts of the seized
specimen after the crime laboratory conducted its tests. This omission is fatal since the
chain of custody should be established from the time the seized drugs were confiscated
and eventually marked until the same is presented during trial.
People v Watamama, GR No. 194945, July 30, 2012

FACTS:
RTC convicted appellant of illegal sale of shabu. On appeal to the CA, appellant argued
that the arresting police officers failed to comply strictly with Section 21(1) of RA 9165,
since there was no proof that they conducted an inventory of the confiscated items, or
even marked the same in his presence, or the presence of his representative or
counsel, or a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any
elected official.

ISSUE:
Whether the chain of custody was established by the prosecution?

RULING:
NO. In all prosecutions for the violation of the RA 9165, the existence of the prohibited
drug has to be proved. The chain of custody rule requires that testimony be presented
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is
offered in evidence. To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the substance
presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused.

While the Court recognizes substantial adherence to the requirements of RA 9165 and
its implementing rules and regulations, not perfect adherence, is what is demanded of
police officers attending to drugs cases, still, such officers must present justifiable
reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items had been preserved. Here, however, they failed to meet these
conditions.

The Court enumerated the different links that the prosecution must endeavor to
establish with respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation: first, the seizure
and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to
the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turn over and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.

In the case, the over-reliance on the apprehending officer’s testimony and the failure to
present the investigator are fatal to the prosecution’s case. Since the failure to establish
every link in the chain of custody of the drug compromised its identity and integrity,
which is the corpus delicti of the crimes charged against appellant, his acquittal is
therefore in order.
Villareal, Dizon v People, GR No. 151258, February 1, 2012

FACTS:
For the tragic death of Lenny Villa in February 1991 due to hazing initiation rites, 26
members of Aquila Legis were tried and convicted by the RTC of homicide. On appeal,
the CA set aside the finding of conspiracy and modified the criminal liability of each of
the accused according to individual participation. 19 were acquitted, 4 were found guilty
of slight physical injuries, and only Villareal and Dizon were found guilty of homicide.
Villareal and Dizon were the ones who demanded that the initiation rites be reopened,
subjecting the neophytes to additional rounds of physical pain which eventually led to
Lenny’s death. However, on petition before the SC, Villareal died.

ISSUE:
Whether the conviction was proper?

RULING:
The accused fraternity members are guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
As a matter of law, the Court is constrained to rule against the trial court’s finding of
malicious intent to inflict physical injuries on Lenny, there being no proof beyond
reasonable doubt of the existence of malicious intent to inflict physical injuries or animus
iniuriandi as required in mala in se cases, considering the contextual background of his
death, the unique nature of hazing, and absent a law prohibiting hazing.

The collective acts of the fraternity members were tantamount to recklessness, which
made the resulting death of Lenny a culpable felony. Organizations owe to their initiates
a duty of care not to cause them injury in the process. Since the NBI medico-legal
officer found that the victim’s death was the cumulative effect of the injuries suffered,
criminal responsibility redounds to all those who directly participated in and contributed
to the infliction of physical injuries.

The Court’s finding of criminal liability for the felony of reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide shall cover only accused Dizon, Tecson, Ama, Almeda and Bantug. Had the
Anti-Hazing Law been in effect then, these five accused fraternity members would have
all been convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua.