Drugcases Final Exam

Page 1 of 63
G.R. No. 179940 April 23, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
NORBERTO DEL MONTE y GAPAY @ OBET, accused-appellant.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
Assailed before Us is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02070 dated 28 May 2007 which
affirmed with modification the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78, in Criminal
Case No. 3437-M-02, finding accused-appellant Norberto del Monte, a.k.a. Obet, guilty of violation of Section 5,3 Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
On 11 December 2002, accused-appellant was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accusatory portion of the information reads:
That on or about the 10th day of December 2002, in the municipality of Baliuag, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification,
did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver, give away, dispatch in transit and transport
dangerous drug consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
weighing 0.290 gram.4
The case was raffled to Branch 78 of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan and docketed as Criminal Case No. 3437-M-02.
When arraigned on 20 January 2003, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio, pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charge.5 On 17
February 2003, the pre-trial conference was concluded.6 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented as its lone witness PO1 Gaudencio M. Tolentino, Jr., the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust
operation conducted against appellant, and a member of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office 3/Special Enforcement Unit (SEU) stationed at the Field
Office, Barangay Tarcan, Baliuag, Bulacan.
The version of the prosecution is as follows:
On 10 December 2002, at around 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant went to the office of the PDEA
SEU in Barangay Tarcan, Baliuag, Bulacan and reported that appellant was selling shabu. Upon receipt of said
information, a briefing on a buy-bust operation against appellant was conducted. The team was composed of SPO2
Hashim S. Maung, as team leader, PO1 Gaudencio Tolentino, Jr. as the poseur-buyer, and PO1 Antonio Barreras as back-
up operative. After the briefing, the team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to Poblacion Dike for the
execution of the buy-bust operation.
When the team arrived at appellant’s place, they saw the appellant standing alone in front of the gate. The informant and
PO1 Tolentino approached appellant. The informant introduced PO1 Tolentino to appellant as his friend, saying "Barkada
ko, user." PO1 Tolentino gave appellant P300.00 consisting of three marked P100 bills.7 The bills were marked with "GT
JR," PO1 Tolentino’s initials. Upon receiving the P300.00, appellant took out a plastic sachet from his pocket and handed
it over to PO1 Tolentino. As a pre-arranged signal, PO1 Tolentino lit a cigarette signifying that the sale had been
consummated. PO1 Barreras arrived, arrested appellant and recovered from the latter the marked money.
The white crystalline substance8 in the plastic sachet which was sold to PO1 Tolentino was forwarded to PNP Regional
Crime Laboratory Office 3, Malolos, Bulacan, for laboratory examination to determine the presence of the any dangerous
drug. The request for laboratory examination was signed by SPO2 Maung. 9 Per Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002,10 the
substance bought from appellant was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The testimony of Nellson Cruz Sta. Maria, Forensic Chemical Officer who examined the substance bought from appellant,
was dispensed after both prosecution and defense stipulated that the witness will merely testify on the fact that the drugs
subject matter of this case was forwarded to their office for laboratory examination and that laboratory examination was
indeed conducted and the result was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.11
For the defense, the appellant took the witness stand, together with his common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza; and nephew,
Alejandro Lim.
From their collective testimonies, the defense version goes like this:
On 10 December 2002, appellant was sleeping in his sister’s house in Poblacion Dike when a commotion woke him up. His
nephew, Alejandro Lim, was shouting because the latter, together with appellant’s common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza,
and a niece, was being punched and kicked by several police officers. When appellant tried to pacify the policemen and ask
LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II

Page 2 of 63
them why they were beating up his common-law wife and other relatives, the policemen arrested him, mauled him,
punched him on the chest, slapped him and hit him with a palo-palo. He sustained swollen face, lips and tooth. His
common-law wife was likewise hit on the chest with the palo-palo.
The policemen then took appellant and his common-law wife to a house located in the middle of a field where the former
demanded P15,000.00 for their liberty. The next day, appellant was brought to the police station.
Amelia Mendoza identified PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Barreras as the police officers who manhandled them and who
demanded P15,000.00 so that she and appellant could go home. The following day at 6:00 a.m., she said her child and
cousin arrived with the P15,000.00. She was released but appellant was detained. She does not know why the police
officers filed this case against appellant. What she knows is that they were asking money from them.
Alejandro Lim merely corroborated the testimonies of appellant and Amelia Mendoza.
On 8 March 2004, the trial court rendered its decision convicting appellant of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00. The dispostive portion of the
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, this Court hereby finds accused Norberto del Monte y Gapay @ Obet GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Violation of Section 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of P5,000,000.00. With cost.
The drugs subject matter of this case is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government. The Branch of this Court is
directed to turn over the same to the Dangerous Drugs Board within ten (10) days from receipt hereof for proper disposal
thereof.12
The trial court found the lone testimony of PO1 Gaudencio M. Tolentino, Jr. to be credible and straightforward. It
established the fact that appellant was caught selling shabu during an entrapment operation conducted on 10 December
2002. Appellant was identified as the person from whom PO1 Tolentino bought P300.00 worth of shabu as confirmed by
Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002. On the other hand, the trial court was not convinced by appellant’s defense of frame-
up and denial. Appellant failed to substantiate his claims that he was merely sleeping and was awakened by the screams of
his relatives who were being mauled by the police officers.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 10 March 2004.13 With the filing thereof, the trial court directed the immediate
transmittal of the entire records of the case to us. 14 However, pursuant to our ruling in People v. Mateo,15 the case was
remanded to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition. 16
On 28 May 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision but reduced the fine imposed on appellant
to P500,000.00. It disposed of the case as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the decision dated March 8, 2004 of the RTC, Branch 78, Malolos,
Bulacan, in Criminal Case No. 3437-M-02, finding accused-appellant Norberto del Monte guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATIONthat the amount of fine imposed upon him is reduced from P5,000,000.00
to P500,000.00.17
A Notice of Appeal having been timely filed by appellant, the Court of Appeals forwarded the records of the case to us for
further review.18
In our Resolution19 dated 10 December 2007, the parties were notified that they may file their respective supplemental
briefs, if they so desired, within 30 days from notice. Both appellant and appellee opted not to file a supplemental brief on
the ground they had exhaustively argued all the relevant issues in their respective briefs and the filing of a supplemental
brief would only contain a repetition of the arguments already discussed therein.
Appellant makes a lone assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE
CHARGED DESPITE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM FOR FAILURE OF THE ARRESTING
OFFICERS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 21 OF R.A. 9165.20
Appellant anchors his appeal on the arresting policemen’s failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No.
9165. He claims that pictures of him together with the alleged confiscated shabu were not taken immediately upon his
arrest as shown by the testimony of the lone prosecution witness. He adds that PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Antonio Barreras,
the police officers who had initial custody of the drug allegedly seized and confiscated, did not conduct a physical
inventory of the same in his presence as shown by their joint affidavit of arrest. Their failure to abide by said section casts
doubt on both his arrest and the admissibility of the evidence adduced against him.

Page 3 of 63
At the outset, it must be stated that appellant raised the police officers’ alleged non-compliance with Section 2121 of
Republic Act No. 9165 for the first time on appeal. This, he cannot do. It is too late in the day for him to do so. In People v.
Sta. Maria22 in which the very same issue was raised, we ruled:
The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police
officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because
appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers’ alleged
violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead
raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there
were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value.
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to
reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot
raise the question for the first time on appeal. (Emphases supplied.)
In People v. Pringas,23 we explained that non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the
items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. In the case at bar, appellant never questioned the custody and disposition of the drug that was taken from him. In
fact, he stipulated that the drug subject matter of this case was forwarded to PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3,
Malolos, Bulacan for laboratory examination which examination gave positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug. We thus find the integrity and the evidentiary value of the drug seized from appellant not to have been
compromised.
We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the inventory and the
photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3
of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such
law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts. One
example is that provided in Section 31 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court wherein a party producing a document as genuine
which has been altered and appears to be altered after its execution, in a part material to the question in dispute, must
account for the alteration. His failure to do so shall make the document inadmissible in evidence. This is clearly provided
for in the rules.
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the
confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if
there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight - evidentiary merit or probative value - to
be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in
each case.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 24 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.25
All these elements have been shown in the instant case. The prosecution clearly showed that the sale of the drugs actually
happened and that the shabu subject of the sale was brought and identified in court. The poseur buyer positively identified
appellant as the seller of the shabu. Per Chemistry Report No. D-728-2002 of Forensic Chemical Officer Nellson Cruz Sta.
Maria, the substance, weighing 0.290 gram, which was bought by PO1 Tolentino from appellant in consideration
of P300.00, was examined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
In the case before us, we find the testimony of the poseur-buyer, together with the dangerous drug taken from appellant,
more than sufficient to prove the crime charged. Considering that this Court has access only to the cold and impersonal
records of the proceedings, it generally relies upon the assessment of the trial court, which had the distinct advantage of
observing the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses during trial. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts
which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The
reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses having heard their
testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. 26
The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. 27 Finding no
compelling reason to depart from the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we affirm their findings.
Appellant denies selling shabu to the poseur-buyer insisting that he was framed, the evidence against him being "planted,"
and that the police officers were exacting P15,000.00 from him.
In the case at bar, the evidence clearly shows that appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation. Having been caught
in flagrante delicto, his identity as seller of the shabu can no longer be doubted. Against the positive testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, appellant’s plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing
evidence, must simply fail.28 Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to

Page 4 of 63
contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of
the Dangerous Drugs Act.29 For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome
the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. 30 This, appellant
failed to do. The presumption remained unrebutted because the defense failed to present clear and convincing evidence
that the police officers did not properly perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive.
The presentation of his common-law wife, Amelia Mendoza, and his nephew, Alejandro Lim, to support his claims fails to
sway. We find both witnesses not to be credible. Their testimonies are suspect and cannot be given credence without clear
and convincing evidence. Their claims, as well as that of appellant, that they were maltreated and suffered injuries remain
unsubstantiated. As found by the trial court:
The accused, on the other hand, in an effort to exculpate himself from liability raised the defense of frame-up. He alleged
that at the time of the alleged buy bust he was merely sleeping at the house of his sister. That he was awakened by the yells
and screams of his relatives as they were being mauled by the police officers. However, this Court is not convinced.
Accused failed to substantiate these claims of maltreatment even in the face of his wife’s and nephew’s testimony. No
evidence was presented to prove the same other than their self-serving claims.31
Moreover, we agree with the observation of the Office of the Solicitor General that the witnesses for the defense cannot
even agree on what time the arresting policemen allegedly arrived in their house. It explained:
To elaborate, appellant testified that it was 3 o’clock in the afternoon of December 10, 2002 when he was roused from his
sleep by the policemen who barged into the house of his sister (TSN, July 7, 2003, p. 2). His common-law wife, however,
testified that it was 10-11 o’clock in the morning when the policemen came to the house (TSN, Oct. 13, 2003, p. 6). On the
other hand, Alejandro Lim testified that he went to sleep at 11 o’clock in the morning and it was 10 o’clock in the morning
when the policemen arrived (TSN, Feb.2, 2004, p. 6). He thus tried to depict an absurd situation that the policemen
arrived first before he went to sleep with appellant.32
Having established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements constituting the illegal sale of drugs, we are constrained to
uphold appellant’s conviction.
The sale of shabu is penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Said section reads:
SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
Under said law, the sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of its quantity and purity, is punishable by life imprisonment to
death and a fine of P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00. For selling 0.290 gram of shabu to PO1 Tolentino, and there being
no modifying circumstance alleged in the information, the trial court, as sustained by the Court of Appeals, correctly
imposed the penalty of life imprisonment in accordance with Article 63(2)33 of the Revised Penal Code.
As regards the fine to be imposed on appellant, the trial court pegged the fine at P5,000,000.00 which the Court of
Appeals reduced to P500,000.00. Both amounts are within the range provided for by law but the amount imposed by the
Court of Appeals, considering the quantity of the drugs involved, is more appropriate.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 02070 dated 28 May 2007, sustaining the conviction of appellant Norberto Del Monte, a.k.a. Obet, for
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Page 5 of 63
G.R. No. 186418 October 16, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
ALFREDO LAZARO, JR. a.k.a JUN LAZARO y AQUINO, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
For review is the Decision1 dated 18 July 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02258 which affirmed with
modification the Decision2 dated 27 April 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Baguio City, in Criminal
Cases No. 23227-R, No. 23228-R and No. 23229-R, finding accused-appellant Alfredo Lazaro, Jr. a.k.a Jun Lazaro y
Aquino guilty of illegal sale, possession and use of methamphetamine hydrochloride, popularly known as shabu, under
Sections 5, 11, and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.
The facts gathered from the records are as follows:
On 17 June 2004, two separate informations were filed before the RTC against appellant for illegal sale and possession of
shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the informations read:
Criminal Case No. 23227-R
The undersigned accuses ALFREDO LAZARO, JR. a.k.a JUN LAZARO y AQUINO for VIOLATION OF SECTION 5,
ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165 otherwise known as the COMPREHENSIVE Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
committed as follows:
That on June 15, 2004, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, x x x, and without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute
and/or deliver One (1) small heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride known as
Shabu in the amount of P3,000.00 [should be P300], weighing 0.05 gram to Poseur Buyer SPO1 Dennis G. Indunan,
knowing fully well that said Methamphetamine Hydrochloride known as Shabu is a dangerous drug, in violation of the
aforementioned provision of law.3
The undersigned accuses JUN LAZARO y AQUINO for VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT
9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 committed as follows:
That on June 15, 2004, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused x x x, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control One (1)
small heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride known as Shabu weighing 0.04
gram, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding license or prescription in violation of the aforecited provision of law. 4
On 18 June 2004, an information was filed with the RTC against appellant for illegal use of shabu under Section 15, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165, thus:
The undersigned accuses JUN LAZARO for VIOLATION OF SECTION 15 [ARTICLE II] OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165
[otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002], committed as follows:
That on or about the 15th day of June, 2004, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use Dangerous Drugs
particularly Methamphetamine per the result of a Qualitative Examination conducted on the urine sample taken from
him, in violation of the aforecited provision of law.5
Subsequently, these cases were consolidated. When arraigned on 28 June 2004, appellant, assisted by counsel de oficio,
pleaded "Not guilty" to each of the charges.6 Trial on the merits thereafter followed.
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Senior Inspector Hordan T. Pacatiw, Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Dennis
G. Indunan, SPO1 Emerson A. Lingbawan and PO3 Paulino A. Lubos, all of whom are members of the Philippine National
Police and were assigned at the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, Anti-Illegal Drugs Team unit, Baguio City.
Their testimonies, taken together, bear the following:
On 15 June 2004, at about 12:30 p.m., an informant went to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG),
Anti-Illegal Drugs Team unit (AIDT), Baguio City, and reported to PO3 Paulino Lubos (PO3 Lubos) the drug trafficking

Page 6 of 63
activities of appellant in Central Bakakeng, Baguio City. PO3 Lubos relayed the information to Police Senior Inspector
Hordan T. Pacatiw (Inspector Pacatiw), head of AIDT, who in turn, referred the matter to Senior Superintendent Marvin
V. Bolabola (Superintendent Bolabola), chief of CIDG, Baguio City, for appropriate action. Superintendent Bolabola
formed a team and planned a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of Inspector Pacatiw who would act as the team
leader; SPO1 Dennis G. Indunan (SPO1 Indunan) as the poseur-buyer; PO3 Lubos as the seizing officer; and SPO1
Emerson A. Lingbawan (SPO1 Lingbawan) as the arresting officer. Superintendent Bolabola handed SPO1 Indunan three
One Hundred Peso (P100.00) bills to be utilized as buy-bust money. SPO1 Indunan marked the monies with "DG-06-15-
04." Thereafter, the team coordinated the planned buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA).
At around 2:30 p.m. of the same date, the team, together with the informant, went to appellant’s house at 181 Km. 3,
Central Bakakeng, Baguio City. Upon arriving thereat, the informant and SPO1 Indunan saw appellant standing at the
balcony of the third floor of the three-storey house. The informant proceeded inside appellant’s house and talked with
appellant at the balcony of the third floor, while SPO1 Indunan stood outside the house at a distance of 10 meters. The rest
of the team positioned themselves outside appellant’s house at a distance of 25 meters. Later, the informant signaled SPO1
Indunan to approach him and appellant at the balcony of the third floor. Thereupon, the informant introduced SPO1
Indunan to appellant as user and buyer of shabu. The informant subsequently excused himself and left SPO1 Indunan and
appellant. Appellant then asked SPO1 Indunan how much worth of shabu he would want to buy. SPO1 Indunan answered
he would like to purchase three hundred pesos (P300.00) worth of shabu. Appellant knocked at the door of a room in the
balcony and called a certain "Bong." Bong is appellant’s brother whose full name is Ferdinand Bong Lazaro. A man opened
the door and handed a green box to appellant. Appellant opened the green box, took a plastic sachet from it, handed the
plastic sachet to SPO1 Indunan, and demanded payment from the latter. After examining the contents of the plastic sachet
and believing that the same contained shabu, SPO1 Indunan gave the three marked one hundred peso bills to appellant. At
this juncture, SPO1 Indunan removed his sunglasses and placed it in his pocket as pre-arranged signal to the other
members of the team.
The other members of the team rushed to the crime scene and identified themselves as police officers. Appellant tried to
resist arrest but he was subdued by the team. Inspector Pacatiw then apprised appellant of his constitutional rights.
Afterwards, SPO1 Indunan frisked and recovered from appellant the buy-bust money and the green box which contained
another plastic sachet with white substance. SPO1 Indunan marked with "DG-06-15-04" the plastic sachet containing
white substance sold to him by appellant, as well as the plastic sachet with white substance found inside the green box.
Meanwhile, Inspector Pacatiw knocked at the door of a room on the balcony and called on Bong to open the door but to no
avail. Inspector Pacatiw and some members of the team then forcibly opened the door. Although the team found no one
inside the room, they, however, subsequently saw a man, whom they believed to be Bong, running down the basement of
the house and exiting through its back door. The man then disappeared.
Thereafter, the team discovered and seized at the third floor of the house several drug paraphernalias. The team made a
written inventory on said paraphernalias, as well as the plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan and the plastic
sachet recovered in appellant’s possession, in the presence of representatives from media, the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and the barangay. Said representatives signed the inventory document on the seized items. Inspector Pacatiw took
custody of the said seized items.
The team immediately brought appellant, as well as the items seized, to the office of the CIDG, Baguio City. Thereupon,
the team made a booking sheet, arrest report, a "Joint Affidavit of Arrest" and an "Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer" as regards
the buy-bust operation. Superintendent Bolabola made a written request for physical examination of appellant to the PNP
Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. After conducting a physical examination on appellant, Dr. Elizardo D. Daileg,
medico-legal officer of the PNP Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, issued a medico-legal certificate attesting that
no injuries were found on appellant’s body. Superintendent Bolabola also made separate written requests to the PNP
Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for drug test on appellant and a laboratory examination on the plastic sachet
containing white substance sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan and the plastic sachet with white substance found in
appellant’s possession. After conducting a laboratory examination on the urine sample taken from appellant, Police Officer
1 Juliet Valentin Albon, Forensic Analyst of the PNP Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (Forensic Analyst Albon),
issued a report stating that appellant was positive for shabu. Likewise, after making laboratory tests, Forensic Analyst
Albon issued a chemistry report certifying that the plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan contained 0.05 gram
of shabu while the plastic sachet recovered from appellant’s possession contained 0.04 gram of shabu. 7
The prosecution also adduced documentary and object evidence to buttress the testimonies of its witnesses, to wit: (1)
joint affidavit of the arresting officers signed by Inspector Pacatiw, SPO1 Lingbawan and PO3 Lubos (Exhibit A); 8 (2)
affidavit of the poseur-buyer signed by SPO1 Indunan (Exhibit B);9 (3) booking sheet and arrest report for appellant
(Exhibit C);10 (4) request to conduct laboratory examination on the two plastic sachets recovered from appellant which
was signed by Superintendent Bolabola;11 (5) request for drug test on appellant signed by Superintendent Bolabola
(Exhibit D);12 (6) request for physical examination on appellant signed by Superintendent Bolabola (Exhibit E); 13 (7)
medico-legal certificate signed by Dr. Daileg (Exhibit E-1);14 (8) chemistry report on the drug test of appellant signed by
Forensic Analyst Albon (Exhibit H);15 (9) chemistry report on the content of plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1
Indunan and the content of the plastic sachet recovered from possession of appellant signed by Forensic Analyst Albon
(Exhibit I);16 (10) inquest disposition issued by the Office of the City Prosecutor, Baguio City (Exhibit J);17 (11) written
inventory on the items seized from appellant signed by representatives from the media, DOJ and barangay (Exhibit
M);18 (12) coordination sheet with the PDEA (Exhibit N); 19 (13) receipt of the items seized from appellant signed by the

Page 7 of 63
members of the buy-bust team (Exhibit O);20 (14) two plastic sachet containing shabu sold by and recovered from the
possession of appellant (Exhibit K);21 and (15) buy-bust money confiscated from appellant (Exhibit L).22
For its part, the defense proffered the testimonies of appellant and his father, namely Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. to refute the
foregoing accusations. Appellant denied any liability and claimed he was framed.
Appellant testified that on 15 June 2004, between 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., he was sleeping in his room at the third floor of
a three-storey house located at 181 Km. 3, Central Bakakeng, Baguio City. He was roused from his sleep by the barking of
dogs outside his house. He opened the door of his room and saw PO3 Lubos, Inspector Pacatiw, SPO1 Lingbawan, SPO1
Indunan and some members of the CIDG, Baguio City, namely Warren Lacangan, Jojo Unata and Jun Digula
approaching. PO3 Lubos tried to hit him with the gun but he evaded it. Inspector Pacatiw hit him several times in the
stomach with a gun. Said policemen kicked him several times causing him to fall on the floor. Thereafter, the policemen
destroyed the door of his brother’s (Ferdinand Bong Lazaro) room and entered therein. He was dragged inside the said
room. Inspector Pacatiw, SPO1 Lingbawan and PO3 Lubos then took the laptop, diskman, Buddha coin bank and power
tools inside the room. Subsequently, the policemen brought him to the second floor of the house where he saw Jade
Salazar (Jade), the live-in partner of his brother, Renato Lazaro. The policemen apprehended Jade, took the latter’s bag
and a green box, and asked her the whereabouts of Bong. He and Jade were later brought to the CIDG office, Baguio City.
Thereupon, the policemen took his wallet, demanded an amount of P200,000.00, and told him to contact Bong so that the
latter may help him settle his case.
While appellant and Jade were being held at CIDG office, Baguio City, a certain Rosita Salazar (Salazar), allegedly a
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) Judge from Abra and Jade’s grandmother, arrived and introduced herself to the policemen.
The policemen ignored Salazar as the latter did not have any identification card. The policemen then brought appellant
and Jade to the PNP Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory Office where they were subjected to physical examination.
Upon their return to the CIDG office, the policemen showed them three plastic sachets of shabu which would be used
against them as evidence. Later, however, appellant learned that Jade was released by the policemen in exchange for a
certain amount of money. During his detention in the CIDG office, he saw PO3 Lubos preparing the marked money. At
that point, he realized that a case would be filed against him in court.
Appellant denied having sold to SPO1 Indunan one plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of shabu on 15 June 2004. He
claimed that it was impossible for the back-up members of the buy-bust team to have witnessed his alleged sale of shabu
to SPO1 Indunan because there were big trees beside the three-storey house which blocked the view of persons on the
ground looking up to the balcony of the third floor. He denied having received from Bong a green box during the alleged
buy-bust and averred that Jade owned the green box. 23
Alfredo Lazaro, Sr., appellant’s father, testified that on 15 June 2004, at about 2:00 p.m., he was watching television inside
his room at the third floor of the three-storey house situated at 181 Km. 3, Central Bakakeng, Baguio City. Later, he heard
the barking of dogs outside the house. Curious, he opened the door of his room. He then saw PO3 Lubos and several
policemen mauling appellant. Shocked, he uttered "apay dayta?" (Why is that?). PO3 Lubos and the policemen stopped
beating appellant. As he was already experiencing chest pains, he returned to his room. Subsequently, he saw the
policemen carrying a backpack and a plastic bag the contents of which belonged to Bong. 24
The defense also submitted a written undertaking of Jade and a receipt of custody signed by Salazar in support of its
contentions.25
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellant in all of the criminal cases. In Criminal Case No. 23227-R,
appellant was found guilty of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal sale of shabu) and was sentenced to life
imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. On the other hand, in Criminal Case No. 23228-R,
appellant was found guilty of violating Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal use of shabu) and was penalized with
six months drug rehabilitation in a government center. With respect to Criminal Case No. 23229-R, appellant was found
guilty of violating Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal possession of shabu) and was meted an imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as maximum. He was further ordered to pay a fine
of P300,000.00.
Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals. On 18 July 2008, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision partly
granting the appeal. The appellate court affirmed the conviction of appellant in Criminal Cases No. 23227-R and No.
23229-R. However, it reversed the RTC’s ruling in Criminal Case No. 23228-R by acquitting appellant in the said criminal
case.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 12 August 2008. 26
In his Brief27 and Supplemental Brief,28 appellant assigned the following errors:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME
CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT;

Page 8 of 63
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSESS WHILE TOTALLY DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE;
III.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROCEDURES LAID DOWN IN RA 9165.29
In the main, appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt for illegal sale and possession of shabu.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
thereof. In prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.30 In the case at bar, the prosecution was
able to establish, through testimonial, documentary and object evidence, the said elements.
SPO1 Indunan, the poseur-buyer, testified that appellant sold to him shabu during a legitimate buy-bust operation.31 Per
chemistry report of Forensic Analyst Albon, the substance, weighing 0.05 gram, which was bought by SPO1 Indunan from
appellant for P300.00, was examined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. SPO1 Indunan narrated
the transaction with appellant as follows:
Q What happened next when you were already at the residence of the accused?
A When we were near the house, we saw a man standing at the balcony, Sir.
Q How many storeys is the house of the accused?
A About three (3), Sir.
Q Where is the balcony where the man was standing?
A At the third floor, Sir.
Q What happened next?
A The Informant told me to wait first and he would go ahead and talk to Jun, Sir.
A After talking, the Informant signaled me to go near them, sir.
xxxx
A The Informant signaled me to go near them, Sir.
xxxx
A I was introduced to Jun as user and buyer of shabu, Sir.
Q Were you introduced by name?
A No, Sir.
A The Informant excused himself, Sir.
Q And them?
A We talked with Jun and asked me how much will I buy, Sir.
Q In what language or dialect?

Page 9 of 63
A Tagalog, Sir.
Q How?
A "Magkano bang bibilhin mo" and I said "tatlong daan lang," Sir.
A He knocked at the door and called out for "Bong." Sir.
A Bong opened the door and handed Jun something a green box, Sir.
Q How did you know that it was Bong?
A That is what I heard, Sir.
Q Were you able to see the face of Bong during that time?
A Yes, Sir.
Q After Bong had opened the door, what happened next? All this time you were beside Jun?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What happened next after the green box was handed to Jun?
A The person told Jun "eto na yong box," Sir.
A And Jun opened the box and brought out one (1) plastic sachet and handed it to me and demanded for the payment, Sir.
Q How?
A He said "akina yong bayad," Sir.
Q After he handed to you that sachet and asked for the payment what did you say also?
A I first examined the content and after believing that it was shabu, I handed the marked money, Sir.
xxxx
Q After that what happened next?
A After handling him the money, I gave the pre-arranged signal, Sir.
Q What was your pre-arranged signal?
A By removing my sunglasses and placing it in my pocket, Sir.
Q After you have made the signal what happened next?
A My back-up team rushed to where I am (sic), Sir.
xxxx
PROS. CATRAL:
Q The subject of your operation you already know him initially as Jun, did you eventually come to know his full name?
A Yes, Sir.
Q What is his full name?
A Jun Aquino Lazaro, Sir.

Page 10 of 63
Q If Jun Aquino Lazaro is in the courtroom would you be able to identify him?
A Yes, Sir.
INTERPRETER:
Witness pointed to a male person who gave his name as Jun Lazaro.32
Inspector Pacatiw, SPO1 Lingbawan and PO3 Lubos corroborated the aforesaid testimony of SPO1 Indunan on relevant
points.
The prosecution adduced as its documentary and object evidence the transparent plastic sachet of shabu sold by appellant
to SPO1 Indunan during the buy-bust operation, the chemistry report of Forensic Analyst Albon confirming that the
plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan contained 0.05 gram of shabu, and the marked money used during the
buy-bust operation.
Parenthetically, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, such as shabu, 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.33 All these elements have been established. SPO1 Indunan testified
that after appellant sold to him shabu, he (SPO1 Indunan) and the members of the buy-bust team arrested appellant. He
then frisked appellant and recovered from the latter a green box which contained plastic sachet with white granules. The
chemistry report of Forensic Analyst Albon confirms that such plastic sachet found inside the green box contains 0.04
gram of shabu. The relevant portion of the testimony of SPO1 Indunan is as follows:
A After we controlled Jun we brought him to our office, Sir.
Q Immediately?
A Yes, Sir.
Q He was not searched at the area of operation?
A He was searched, Sir.
Q Who searched him?
A I, Sir.
Q What was the result of your search?
A I was able to find the marked money, Sir.
Q Aside from the money what else did you recover from the person?
A The content of the box there is still one (1) sachet, Sir.
Q If this sachet which you recovered from the accused will be shown to you again will you be able to identify it?
A Yes, Sir.
Q How sure are you that you would be able to identify it?
A I placed my initials, Sir.
Q I am showing to you another sachet, please tell us if this is the same sachet that you said that was confiscated?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Please point to your initial?
A Yes, Sir.
Q When did you place that?
A After the arrest of the accused, Sir.

Page 11 of 63
PROS. CATRAL:
The other sachet may we pray that this be marked as Exhibit "K-1", your Honor.
COURT:
Mark it please.34
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses regarding appellant’s illegal sale and possession of shabu are consistent with
the documentary and object evidence submitted by the prosecution. The RTC and the Court of Appeals found the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible. Both courts also found no ill motive on their part to testify against
appellant.
The rule is that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect because trial
courts have the advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testify. This is more true if such findings
were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said
findings are generally binding upon this Court.35
To rebut the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, appellant interposed the defense of denial and frame-up.
Appellant denied he sold shabu to SPO1 Indunan and he possessed a green box containing shabu during the buy-bust
operation. He claimed that said green box was seized from Jade and that the arresting officers tried to extort money from
him in exchange for his freedom.
The defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted
and is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the
defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence. 36 In the cases before us, appellant
failed to present sufficient evidence in support of his claims. Aside from his self-serving assertions, no plausible proof was
presented to bolster his allegations.
It is true that appellant submitted a written undertaking of Jade and a receipt of custody signed by alleged Abra MTC
Judge Salazar in support of his contentions that the green box was seized from Jade and that he was framed. Nonetheless,
there was nothing in said documents which proved his defenses. In the said undertaking, Jade merely declares (1) that on
15 June 2004, at about 2:30 p.m., she was apprehended in the house of appellant by the officers of the CIDG, Baguio City,
for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 9165; (2) that she was informed of her constitutional rights by the CIDG officers;
(3) that she was humanely treated by the CIDG officers during her investigation and that none of her personal property
was taken or damaged by said officers; (4) that she had no complaint whatsoever against the CIDG officers; and (5) that
she promised to appear if called upon in the investigation regarding said incident. On the other hand, the receipt of
custody signed by Salazar merely states (1) that she received in good health the living person of Jade from the custody of
CIDG, Baguio City; and (2) that she promised to present Jade for investigation as regards the incident if required by the
proper authorities. Indeed, the above-cited documents merely describe the circumstances and conditions of Jade during
and after the incident. There was no reference at all to appellant’s claim that the green box was seized from Jade and that
he was framed.37
Further, it should be noted that appellant has not filed a single complaint for frame-up or extortion against the buy-bust
team. This inaction clearly betrays appellant’s claim of frame-up.
Appellant imputes ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team by asseverating that he had a previous quarrel with PO3
Lubos and that he knows some members of the buy-bust team. Withal, this allegation is uncorroborated and
unsubstantiated. Hence, the imputation of improper motive should be negated. When the police officers involved in the
buy-bust operation have no motive to testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have
performed their duties regularly.38
Moreover, motive is not essential for conviction for a crime when there is no doubt as to the identity of the culprit, and
that lack of motive for committing the crime does not preclude conviction for such crime when the crime and participation
of the accused are definitely proved.39 In the instant cases, SPO1 Indunan positively identified appellant as the one who
sold to him shabu during the buy-bust operation. He also testified that he recovered shabu from appellant’s possession
during said incident.
The defense presented appellant’s father, Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. to corroborate appellant’s version of the incident. Initially, it
must be emphasized that the testimony of Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. should be received with caution he being the father of
appellant.40 Alfredo Lazaro, Sr. testified that upon opening the door of his room, he saw PO3 Lubos and some policemen
beating appellant. He uttered "apay dayta?" (Why is that?), left the scene, and went back to his room. There was no
testimony at all from him that he tried to restrain PO3 Lubos and the policemen from mauling appellant, or that he
immediately called or sought the help of barangay officials or higher authorities. His court statement hardly inspires belief
as it would be highly unnatural for a father not to react defensively or sought help if his child is being maltreated in his
presence. In addition, the physical examination report on appellant states that no injuries were observed on appellant’s
body immediately after his arrest. His testimony, therefore, deserves scant consideration.

Page 12 of 63
Given the foregoing circumstances, the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses prevail over the
defenses of denial and frame-up of appellant.
Appellant tried to cast doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses based on the following reasons: (1) there was
inconsistency in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as to what language was used in apprising appellant of his
constitutional rights; (2) the informant was not presented as witness during the trial; and (3) there was no buy-bust
operation because appellant was merely instigated by the informant to sell shabu to SPOI Indunan. 41
For a discrepancy or inconsistency in the testimony of a witness to serve as basis for acquittal, it must refer to the
significant facts vital to the guilt or innocence of the accused for the crime charged. An inconsistency which has nothing to
do with the elements of the crime cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused. 42
The inconsistency cited by appellant refers to trivial matter and is clearly beyond the elements of illegal sale of shabu
because it does not pertain to the actual buy-bust itself - that crucial moment when appellant was caught selling shabu.
Such inconsistency is also irrelevant to the elements of illegal possession of shabu. Besides, the inconsistency even bolsters
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses as it erased any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. 43
Anent the failure of the prosecution to present the testimony of the informant, it is well-settled that the testimony of an
informant in drug-pushing cases is not essential for conviction and may be dispensed if the poseur-buyer testified on the
same.44
As to the claim of instigation, where the police or its agent lures the accused into committing the offense in order to
prosecute him and which is deemed contrary to public policy and considered an absolutory cause, 45 there is nothing in the
records which clearly and convincingly shows that appellant was instigated by the informant to sell shabu to SPO1
Indunan. What is apparent therein is that the informant merely introduced SPO1 Indunan to appellant as a user and buyer
of shabu and that the informant did not in any way allure or persuade appellant to sell shabu to SPO1 Indunan. 46 Also,
after such introduction, it was appellant who hastily asked SPO1 Indunan how much worth of shabu the latter would want
to buy.47 This obviously manifests that the idea to sell shabu originated from appellant without any instigation from SPO1
Indunan or the informant. Indeed, what have transpired in the instant case was a legitimate buy-bust operation and not
instigation. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid means of
arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. It is commonly employed by police officers as an effective way of
apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. 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.
Appellant further posits that the prosecution did not strictly comply with the procedures laid down in Section 21, Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165 because: (1) although the written inventory of the seized items bore signatures of representatives
from the DOJ, the media, and the barangay, only the representative from the media was named; (2) no pictures of the
seized items were taken; (3) Forensic Analyst Albon did not testify with regard to her chemistry report on the subject
drugs; (4) there were gaps in the chain of custody of the subject drugs because the officer who received the request for
laboratory examination of the same did not testify, and the custodian of the subject drugs from the time they were
examined up to their presentation in trial was not identified; and (5) the prosecution failed to show the condition of the
subject drugs and the precautions taken in preserving their condition. 48
It should be noted that appellant raised the buy-bust team’s alleged non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 for the first time on appeal. This, he cannot do. It is too late in the day for him to do so. In People v. Sta.
Maria49] in which the very same issue was raised, we held:
The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police
officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because
appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers’alleged
violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead
raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there
were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value.
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to
reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot
raise the question for the first time on appeal." (Emphases supplied.)
Moreover, we have held in several cases50 that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is not
fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 51 In the present case, the integrity of the drugs seized
from appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the instant case was shown not to have
been broken.
Records revealed that after SPO1 Indunan confiscated two transparent plastic sachets containing shabu from appellant, he
marked each of the two sachets of shabu with "DG-06-15-04" and turned them over to Superintendent Bolabola, who, in
turn, handed them to Inspector Pacatiw who brought the same to PO1 Guingahan of CIDG office, Baguio City. The latter
then delivered the two plastic sachets each marked with "DG-06-15-04" to the PNP Benguet Provincial Crime Laboratory
Office for laboratory examination. The same two sachets were received by SPO1 Carino of PNP Benguet Provincial Crime

Page 13 of 63
Laboratory Office.52 After a qualitative examination conducted on the contents of the two sachets each marked "DG-06-15-
04," Forensic Analyst Albon found them to positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Upon being weighed,
the one plastic sachet sold by appellant to SPO1 Indunan was found to be containing 0.05 gram while the other plastic
sachet found in appellant’s possession was determined to have 0.04 gram of shabu.
When the prosecution presented the two sachets of shabu each marked with "DG-06-15-04," SPO1 Indunan positively
identified them as the very same sachets he bought and recovered from appellant in the buy-bust operation. The two
plastic sachets containing 0.05 and 0.04 gram of shabu, respectively, each had the marking "DG-06-15-04" as attested by
Forensic Analyst Albon in her chemistry report. The existence, due execution, and genuineness of the said chemistry
report, as well as the qualifications of Forensic Analyst Albon were admitted by the defense.53Further, SPO1 Indunan
categorically declared during the trial that he put "DG-06-15-04" marking on each of the two transparent plastic sachets
of shabu recovered from appellant. Clearly, the identity of the drugs recovered from appellant has been duly preserved and
established by the prosecution.
The fact that Forensic Analyst Albon and the persons who had possession or custody of the subject drugs were not
presented as witnesses to corroborate SPO1 Indunan’s testimony is of no moment. The prosecution dispensed with the
testimony of Forensic Analyst Albon because the defense had already agreed in the substance of her testimony to be given
during trial, to wit: (1) that she examined the subject drugs; (2) that she found them to be positive for shabu; and (3) that
she prepared and issued a chemistry report pertaining to the subject drugs.
Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in
Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a requirement. 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, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should
take the witness stand.54 In People v. Zeng Hua Dian,55 we ruled:
After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not
broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as
witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a
crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to
decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to
present as witnesses.
Since appellant’s violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 were duly established by the
prosecution’s evidence, we shall now ascertain the penalties imposable on him.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity,
carries with it the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00).
Pursuant, however, to the enactment of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death
Penalty in the Philippines," only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed. Thus, the RTC and the Court of Appeals
were correct in imposing the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 on appellant in Criminal Case No.
23227-R.
Section 11(3), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that illegal possession of less than five grams of shabu is
penalized with imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years, plus a fine ranging from Three
hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00).
Appellant was charged with and found to be guilty of illegal possession of 0.04 gram of shabu in Criminal Case No. 23229-
R. Hence, the RTC and the Court of Appeals aptly sentenced appellant to imprisonment of 12 years and one day, as
minimum, to 15 years, as maximum, and fined him P300,000.00, since said penalties are within the range of penalties
prescribed by the aforequoted provision.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 18 July 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02258 is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.

Page 14 of 63
G.R. No. 190621
PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
- versus -
GLENN SALVADOR y BAL VERDE, and DORY ANN PARCON y DEL ROSARIO, Accused,GLENN SALVADOR y
BALVERDE, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In a buy-bust operation, the failure to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from the accused
will not render his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the said items have been preserved.
Factual Antecedents
For review is the Decision
dated September 24, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 03230 that affirmed in toto the January
15, 2008 Decision
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82, Quezon City, in Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-120799-800. The said RTC
Decision found. Glenn Salvador y Balverde (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (illegal
sale), and accused Dory Ann Parcon y Del Rosario (Parcon) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11
(illegal possession), both of Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Information
for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 filed against appellant in Criminal Case No. Q-03-120799 has the following
accusatory portion:
That on or about the 3rd day of September, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by
law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell,
dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, one (1) plastic sachet of white crystalline
substance containing zero point zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
While the pertinent portion of the Information
for violation of Section 11 of Article II, RA 9165 filed against Parcon in Criminal Case No. Q-03-120800 is as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of September, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by
law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her
possession and control one (1) plastic sachet of white crystalline substance containing zero point zero four (0.04) gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon motion of the prosecution,
the cases were consolidated. On November 4, 2003, appellant and Parcon were arraigned. They entered separate pleas of
‘not guilty’.
During the pre-trial conference, appellant admitted the following facts which the prosecution offered for stipulation:
x x x [T]hat [Police Inspector Leonard T. Arban (P/Insp. Arban)] is a Forensic Chemist of the PNP; that he received a
letter-request for Laboratory Examination for certain specimen which was marked as Exhibit "A"; that together with the
said request is a brown envelope marked as Exhibit "B"; that said brown envelope contained a plastic sachet marked as
Exhibit "B-1" and thereafter he conducted the examination of the said specimen and submitted a report marked as Exhibit
"C"; the findings thereon that the specimen was positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride was marked as Exhibit
"C-1" and the signature of the said police officer was marked as Exhibit "C-2". Thereafter, said police officer turned over
the said evidence to the Evidence Custodian and retrieved the same for purposes of the hearing today.
Trial ensued. Parcon failed to attend the scheduled hearings, hence, she was tried in absentia.

Page 15 of 63
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented PO2 Sofjan Soriano (PO2 Soriano) to testify on the entrapment operation that resulted in the
arrest of appellant and Parcon. From his testimony,
the following facts emerged:

While PO2 Soriano was on duty in Police Station 2, Baler Street, Quezon City on September 2, 2003, a confidential
informant (CI) arrived at around 9:00 a.m. and reported that a certain alias Bumski was engaged in the illicit sale of
dangerous drugs in Barangay Pag-asa, Quezon City. PO2 Soriano immediately relayed this information to Police Chief
Inspector Joseph De Vera (P/C Insp. De Vera). A surveillance operation conducted the same day on alias Bumski, who
turned out to be the appellant, confirmed the report. Thus, a police team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation.
PO2 Soriano was designated as poseur-buyer while PO2 Richard Vecida, PO1 Alexander Pancho, PO1 Alvin Pineda (PO1
Pineda) and P/C Insp. De Vera would serve as his backup.
At around 2:45 p.m. of September 3, 2003, the team arrived at Road 10, Barangay Pag-asa, Quezon City. PO2 Soriano and
the CI proceeded to appellant’s house while the rest of the buy-bust team positioned themselves within viewing distance.
The CI introduced PO2 Soriano to appellant as a drug dependent who wanted to purchase ₱200.00 worth of shabu.
During their conversation, Parcon arrived and asked appellant for shabu. Appellant gave her a small heat-sealed plastic
sachet that she placed in her coin purse. Thereafter, PO2 Soriano handed to appellant the buy-bust money consisting of
two 100-peso bills and the latter, in turn, gave him a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2
Soriano then immediately arrested appellant and recovered from his right hand pocket the buy bust money. At this
juncture, PO2 Soriano’s teammates rushed to the scene. PO1 Pineda arrested Parcon and recovered from her a plastic
sachet also containing white crystalline substance.
Appellant and Parcon were then taken to the Baler Police Station. The items recovered during the buy-bust operation were
marked by PO2 Soriano as "SJ-03" and "AP-03" and turned over to the designated investigator, PO1 Vicente Calatay (PO1
Calatay). PO1 Calatay then prepared a letter-request for laboratory examination, which, together with the confiscated
specimen, was brought by PO2 Soriano to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
The prosecution intended to present PO1 Calatay and PO1 Pineda as witnesses, but their testimonies were likewise
dispensed with after the defense agreed to stipulate on the following facts:
PO1 Calatay
[T]hat he was the police investigator assigned to investigate these cases; that in connection with the investigation that he
conducted, he took the Joint Affidavit of Arrest of PO2 Richard Vecida, PO2 Sofjan Soriano, PO1 Alvin Pineda, and
PO1Alexander Pancho marked as Exhibits "F" and "F-1"; that the specimen[s] consisting of two (2) plastic sachets marked
as Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" were turned over to him by the arresting officers; that in connection therewith, he prepared
the request for laboratory examination marked as Exhibit "A" and received a copy of the Chemistry Report, the original of
which was earlier marked as Exhibit "C"; that the buy-bust money consisting of two (2) pieces of Php100.00 bill marked as
Exhibits "D" and "E" were likewise turned over to him by the arresting officer; that he thereafter prepared a letter referral
to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City marked as Exhibits "G" and "G-1".
PO1 Pineda
[T]hat he was part of the buy-bust team which conducted a buy[-]bust operation on September 3, 2003 at about 2:45 a.m.
at Road 10, Pag-asa, Quezon City; that he acted as back-up to PO2 Sofjan Soriano, the poseur buyer in the said operation;
that he was with PO2 [Richard] Vecida and PO1 Alexander Pancho during said operation; that after the consummation of
the transaction between PO2 Sofjan Soriano and Glenn Salvador, he assisted in the arrest of accused Doryann Parcon; that
upon [body] search of accused Parcon, he recovered from the latter a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance;
that said plastic sachet was marked as Exhibit "B-2".
Version of the Defense
In his testimony,
appellant claimed that at about 11:00 p.m. of September 2, 2003, he was parking his tricycle outside his residence at 135
Road 10, Brgy. Pag-asa, Quezon City when a patrol car suddenly stopped in front of his house. Three policemen alighted,
aimed their guns at him, and forced him to board their vehicle. Already inside were two men in handcuffs sitting on the
floor. The police car then proceeded to Police Station 2 in Baler, Quezon City, where he and the two other men were taken
to a room and frisked by policemen who demanded ₱20,000.00 from each of them. They were told to call their relatives to
inform them of their arrest for engaging in a pot session. When appellant refused to oblige, PO2 Soriano said to him:
"matigas ka, hindi ka marunong makisama dapat sayo ikulong." He was thereafter detained and no longer saw the two
men he mentioned. Two days later, he was presented to the Prosecutor’s Office for inquest.
Appellant accused the police officers of falsehood but could not file a case against them since his parents were in the
Unites States of America and he did not know anyone else who could help him. He denied knowing Parcon and the
arresting officers and claimed that he saw Parcon for the first time during the inquest and the arresting officers when they
arrested him.

Page 16 of 63
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The RTC held that the evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant
and Parcon for the crimes charged. It did not find impressive appellant’s claim of extortion by the police officers and
instead upheld the buy-bust operation which it found to have been carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal
safeguards. It ruled that absent proof of evil motive on the part of the police, the presumption of regularity which runs in
their favor stands. Thus, the dispositive portion of the RTC’s Decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused GLENN SALVADOR y BALVERDE
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 charged in Criminal Case No. Q-03-
120799. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the
amount of Five Hundred Thousand (₱500,000.00) PESOS.
On the other hand, judgment is likewise rendered in Criminal Case No. Q-03-120800 finding accused DORY ANN
PARCON y DEL ROSARIO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 11, Article II of the same Act.
Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY as MINIMUM to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS as MAXIMUM and to pay a fine in the amount of THREE
HUNDRED THOUSAND (₱300,000.00) PESOS.
SO ORDERED.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.
In his Brief,
he imputed to the RTC the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN DECLARING THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS
UNDER R.A. No. 9165.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION’S
EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE APPREHENDING TEAM TO PROVE ITS INTEGRITY.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT BASED ONLY ON PO2 SOFJAN
SORIANO’S TESTIMONY.
Aside from the prosecution’s failure to prove the elements constituting the crime of illegal sale of shabu, appellant asserted
that the apprehending officers failed to immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the
same as mandated by Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165; that the chain of custody was broken since PO2
Soriano could not determine with certainty whether the plastic sachet allegedly seized from him was the same specimen
subjected to laboratory examination; that the prosecution was unable to substantiate its claim that the two 100-peso bills
were the same money used in purchasing shabu since the said bills were neither dusted with fluorescent powder nor was
he subjected to fingerprint examination; that the failure to coordinate the buy-bust operation with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was prejudicial to his substantive right; and, that PO2 Soriano and the buy-bust team did
not accord him due process by failing to apprise him of his rights after he was arrested.
The People of the Philippines, on the other hand, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserted in its Brief
that the Decision of the RTC must be affirmed since the guilt of appellant was established beyond reasonable doubt; that
the prosecution proved all the elements of the illegal sale of drugs; that the testimonies of the police officers who
conducted the buy-bust operation and their positive identification of appellant as the seller of the shabu prevail over the
latter’s denial; that the chain of custody of the illegal drug seized from appellant was sufficiently established; that the
failure to use fluorescent powder in the marked money does not result in a failure of the buy-bust operation since the same
is not a prerequisite to such operation; that the failure of the law enforcers to conduct a physical inventory or to
photograph the seized items in accordance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is not fatal; that the failure of the buy-
bust team to coordinate with the PDEA does not invalidate appellant’s arrest; that PO2 Soriano’s failure to recall the
markings on the specimen shows that he was not coached as a witness; that appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up
are unconvincing; and that the failure to apprise appellant of his constitutional rights at the time of his arrest is not fatal
since such rights apply only against extrajudicial confessions.
In its Decision, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. Anent the defects in the chain of custody alleged by appellant, the
said court ruled that the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drugs sold by appellant to PO2 Soriano
was taken to the police station and marked therein and then forwarded to the crime laboratory where it was found positive

Page 17 of 63
for shabu; the marked money used in the buy-bust operation was the same money introduced in evidence; and that the
failure of the arresting team to faithfully observe the requirements of conducting physical inventory and coordinating the
buy-bust operation with PDEA are not fatal since the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items were
preserved. Thus, the dispositive portion of the CA’s Decision, viz:
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is perforce dismissed. Accordingly, the
assailed decision dated January 15, 2008 insofar as the accused-appellant Glenn Salvador Y Balverde is affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal.
On February 8, 2010, the parties were directed to file their supplemental briefs.
The OSG opted to adopt the brief it submitted before the CA as its appeal brief while appellant filed a Supplemental Brief
which, however, contains practically the same arguments he advanced before the CA. Again, aside from questioning the
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against him, appellant questions the arresting officers’ alleged failure to comply
with the chain of custody rule.
Our Ruling
The appeal is unmeritorious.

All the elements for the prosecution of
illegal sale of shabu were sufficiently
established in this case.
In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be established: "(1)
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. x x x What is material in a 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 the corpus delicti"
or the illicit drug in evidence. "[T]he commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs x x x merely requires the
consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the exchange of money and drugs between the buyer
and the seller takes place."
In this case, the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of shabu. The testimony of PO2 Soriano
reveals that an entrapment operation was organized and conducted after they confirmed through a surveillance operation
the information that appellant is engaged in drug peddling activities. Designated as a poseur-buyer, PO2 Soriano, together
with the CI, approached appellant outside his residence. After having been introduced by the CI to appellant as a drug
user, PO2 Soriano asked appellant if he could purchase ₱200.00 worth of shabu. PO2 Soriano handed to appellant the
marked money consisting of two ₱100 bills and the latter, in turn, gave him a plastic sachet of shabu. PO2 Soriano then
arrested appellant and recovered the buy-bust money from the latter. Immediately thereafter his back-up who were
monitoring the transaction from viewing distance arrived. Forensic examination subsequently confirmed that the contents
of the sachets bought from appellant and recovered from Parcon were indeed shabu.
Prosecutions for illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.
Their narration of the incident, "buttressed by the presumption that they have regularly performed their duties in the
absence of convincing proof to the contrary, must be given weight."
Here, the CA affirmed the RTC’s ruling that the testimonies and facts stipulated upon were consistent with each other as
well as with the physical evidence. Thus, there is no justification to disturb the findings of the RTC, as sustained by the CA,
on the matter.
The defenses of denial and frame-up
are unavailing.
The Court cannot convince itself to reverse the finding of facts of the lower courts on the basis of appellant’s self-serving
allegations of denial and extortion/frame-up.
Denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of a prosecution witness. "A defense of denial which is unsupported
and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and
cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative
matters."
Appellant cannot likewise avail of the defense of frame-up which "is viewed with disfavor since, like alibi, it can easily be
concocted and is a common ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law."
To substantiate this defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show that the buy-bust team was
inspired by improper motive or was not properly performing its duty.
Here, there is no evidence that there was ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team. In fact, appellant himself admitted
that he did not know the police officers prior to his arrest. There could therefore be no bad blood between him and the said

Page 18 of 63
police officers. Moreover, there was no proof that the arresting officers improperly performed their duty in arresting
appellant and Parcon.
Non-compliance with Section 21,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is
not fatal.
In arguing for his acquittal, appellant heavily relies on the failure of the buy-bust team to immediately photograph and
conduct a physical inventory of the seized items in his presence. In this regard, Section 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165 provides:
Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof;
However, failure to strictly comply with the above procedure will not render an arrest illegal or the seized items
inadmissible in evidence. Substantial compliance is allowed as provided for in Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of RA 9165.
This provision reads:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
be given a copy thereof: Provided that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis
supplied).
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photographed
the objects confiscated does not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of the accused or render inadmissible in evidence
the items seized. This is due to the proviso added in the implementing rules stating that it must still be shown that there
exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have not been preserved.
"What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused."
The links in the chain of custody must be established.
"The integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are properly preserved for as long as the chain of custody of the same
are duly established."
"‘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. Such record of movements and custody of seized item
shall include the identity and signature of the person who had temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
when such transfer of custody was made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition."
There are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, namely: "first, the seizure and
marking, if practicable, 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 turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and, fourth, the turnover and submission of
the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court."
In this case, the prosecution established clearly the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. There is no
evidence that PO2 Soriano lost possession and control of the seized shabu from the time it was recovered from the
appellant until its turnover to the police station. He marked the seized item immediately upon arrival at the police station.
He turned it over to PO1 Calatay, the investigating officer, who prepared the letter request for the laboratory examination
of the contents of the plastic sachets. These facts were admitted by the appellant.

Page 19 of 63
On the same day, PO2 Soriano personally brought the letter request and specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory where
they were received by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Arban who conducted the examination on the specimens submitted.
During the pre-trial conference, appellant admitted the purpose for which P/Insp. Arban’s testimony was being offered.
The marked sachet of shabu and the marked money used in purchasing the same were both presented in evidence.
Appellant’s contention that the marking of the seized sachets of shabu should have been made in his presence while at the
scene of the crime instead of in the police station fails to impress. It is clear from the earlier cited Sec. 21(a) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 that in a buy-bust situation, the marking of the dangerous drug may be
done in the presence of the violator in the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team. Appellant
should not confuse buy-bust situation from search and seizure conducted by virtue of a court-issued warrant. It is in the
latter case that physical inventory (which includes the marking) is made at the place where the search warrant is served.
Nonetheless, "non-compliance with [the] requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."
Appellant’s claim that the testimony of PO2 Soriano does not deserve credence due to his failure to identify and/or recall
the markings he made on the subject specimen also fails to convince. His failure to immediately recall the markings on the
specimens only show that he is an uncoached witness.
"Such momentary lapse in memory does not detract from the credibility of his testimony as to the essential details of the
incident."
It must also be considered that aside from the fact that police officers handle numerous cases daily, he testified three
years after appellant’s arrest. It is therefore understandable that PO2 Soriano could no longer easily remember all the
details of the incident.
Lastly, appellant’s argument that the entrapment operation is fatally flawed for failure of the buy-bust team to coordinate
with the PDEA deserves scant consideration. "[C]oordination with PDEA, while perhaps ideal, is not an indispensable
element of a proper buy-bust operation;"
it is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.

Penalty
All told, there is no reason to disturb the finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Under this law,
the penalty for the unauthorized sale of shabu, regardless of its quantity and purity, is life imprisonment to death and a
fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10 million. However, with the enactment of RA 9346,
only life imprisonment and fine shall be imposed.

Thus, the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA is proper.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals that affirmed in toto the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 82, insofar as the conviction of Glenn Salvador y Balverde for violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 9346, and the penalty of life imprisonment
and payment of fine of ₱500,000.00 imposed upon him are concerned, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Page 20 of 63
G.R. No. 189806
- versus -
FRANCISCO MANLANGIT y TRESBALLES, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
VELASCO, J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the August 28, 2009 Decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03273, which affirmed in toto the Decision dated July 12, 2007
in Criminal Case Nos. 03-4735 and 03-4961 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64 in Makati City. The RTC found
accused-appellant Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes guilty of drug-sale and drug-use penalized by Republic Act No. (RA)
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On November 25, 2003, an information was filed charging Manlangit with violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, as
follows:
That on or about the 24th day of November 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully and
feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver zero point zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu), which is a dangerous drug.
On December 11, 2003, another information was filed against Manlangit for breach of Sec. 15, Art. II of RA 9165, to wit:
That sometime on or before or about the 24th day of November 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to use dangerous drugs, and
having been arrested and found positive for use of Methylamphetamine, after a confirmatory test, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use Methylamphetamine, a dangerous drug in violation of the said law.
During the arraignment for both cases, Manlangit pleaded not guilty. Afterwards, the cases were tried jointly.
At the trial of the case, the prosecution adduced evidence as follows:
On November 24, 2003, the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) Cluster 4 office received information from an
informant that a certain "Negro" was selling prohibited drugs along Col. Santos Street at Brgy. South Cembo, Makati City.
The MADAC thereafter coordinated with the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSTOF) and the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency to conduct a joint MADAC-police buy-bust operation. A team was assembled
composed of several members of the different offices, among which Police Officer 2 Virginio Costa was designated as the
team leader, with MADAC operative Wilfredo Serrano as the poseur-buyer and Roberto Bayona as his back-up. The team
prepared buy-bust money for the operation, marking two (2) one hundred peso (PhP 100) bills with the initials "AAM."
Upon arrival on Col. Santos Street, Brgy. Cembo, Makati City, the team spotted Manlangit standing in front of his house.
The informant approached Manlangit and convinced the latter that Serrano wanted to purchase shabu from him.
Manlangit asked Serrano how much shabu he wanted, to which Serrano replied that he wanted two hundred pesos (PhP
200) worth of shabu. Manlangit went inside his house and later reappeared with a plastic sachet containing a white
crystalline substance. Manlangit handed over the plastic sachet to Serrano who, in turn, gave Manlangit the marked
money. Then Serrano gave the pre-arranged signal of lighting a cigarette to indicate to the rest of the team that the buy-
bust operation had been consummated. Thus, the rest of the team approached Manlangit and proceeded to arrest him
while informing him of constitutional rights and the reason for his arrest. The marked money was recovered from
Manlangit’s pocket. The plastic sachet was then marked with the initials "FTM" and sent to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) crime laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City for analysis. The PNP crime laboratory identified the white
crystalline substance as Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride in Chemistry Report No. D-1190-03. Manlangit was also
brought to the PNP crime laboratory for a drug test, which yielded a positive result for use of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride.
Manlangit denied that such buy-bust operation was conducted and claimed that the recovered shabu was not from him.
He claimed that he was pointed out by a certain Eli Ballesteros to Serrano and Bayona. Thereafter, he was allegedly

Page 21 of 63
detained at the Barangay Hall of Brgy. Pitogo. There, he was allegedly interrogated by Serrano as to the location of the
shabu and its proceeds, as well as the identity of the drug pushers in the area. He also claimed that whenever he answered
that he did not know what Serrano was talking about, he was boxed in the chest. Later on, he said that he was brought to
Camp Crame for drug testing.
On July 12, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1) In Criminal Case No. 03-4735, finding accused Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of Violation of Section 5, Art II, RA 9165 (drug-sale) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. Said accused shall be given credit for the period of his preventive
detention.
2) In Criminal Case No. 03-4735,
finding accused Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of Violation of Section 15,
Art II, RA 9165 (drug-use), and sentencing him to undergo rehabilitation for at least six (6) months in a government
rehabilitation Center under the auspices of the Bureau of Correction subject to the provisions of Article VIII, RA 9165.
It is further ordered that the plastic sachet containing shabu, subject of Criminal Case No. 03-4735, be transmitted to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the latter’s appropriate action.
SO ORDERED.
From such Decision, Manlangit interposed an appeal with the CA.
In his Brief, accused-appellant Manlangit claimed that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
To support such contention, accused-appellant claimed that there was no buy-bust operation conducted. He pointed out
that he was not in the list of suspected drug pushers of MADAC or of the AIDSTOF. He further emphasized that the buy-
bust operation was conducted without first conducting a surveillance or test buy to determine the veracity of the report
made by the informant. He assailed the fact that despite knowledge of his identity and location, the buy-bust team failed to
secure even a search warrant.
Accused-appellant also raised the issue that the buy-bust team failed to comply with the procedure for the custody and
control of seized prohibited drugs under Sec. 21 of RA 9165. He argued that the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official function was overturned by the officers’ failure to follow the required procedure in the conduct of a
buy-bust operation, as well as the procedure in the proper disposition, custody, and control of the subject specimen.
On August 28, 2009, the CA rendered the decision which affirmed the RTC’s Decision dated July 12, 2007. It ruled that
contrary to accused-appellant’s contention, prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of a buy-bust operation.
The case was a valid example of a warrantless arrest, accused-appellant having been caught in flagrante delicto. The CA
further stated that accused-appellant’s unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient to show that the witnesses for the
prosecution were actuated by improper motive, in this case the members of the buy-bust team; thus, their testimonies are
entitled to full faith and credit. After examining the testimonies of the witnesses, the CA found them credible and found no
reason to disturb the RTC’s findings. Finally, the CA found that chain of evidence was not broken.
Hence, the instant appeal.
In a Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief) dated February 22, 2010, accused-appellant expressed his desire not to
file a supplemental brief and reiterated the same arguments already presented before the trial and appellate courts.
The Issues
The issues, as raised in the Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated September 29, 2008, are:
1. The Court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite the prosecution’s failure to prove his built
beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the procedure for the custody and control of prohibited drugs was
complied with.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is bereft of merit.
First Issue:
Accused-appellant’s guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt

Page 22 of 63
The first paragraph of Sec. 5 of RA 9165 punishes the act of selling dangerous drugs. It provides:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.¾The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging
from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. (Emphasis supplied.)
While Sec. 15, RA 9165 states:
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs.¾A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any
dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a
government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any
dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1)
day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her
possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions
stated therein shall apply. (Emphasis supplied.)
People v. Macatingag
prescribed the requirements for the successful prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as follows.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity 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 pieces of evidence found in the records amply demonstrate that all the elements of the crimes charged were satisfied.
The lower courts gave credence to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, which established the guilt of accused-appellant
for the crimes charged beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies--particularly those of the police officers involved, which
both the RTC and the CA found credible--are now beyond question. As the Court ruled in Aparis v. People:
As to the question of credibility of the police officers who served as principal witnesses for the prosecution, settled is the
rule that prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the
buy-bust operation. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve
credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and
unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better
position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the
Court of Appeals, as in the present case.
Moreover, accused-appellant’s defense of denial, without substantial evidence to support it, cannot overcome the
presumption of regularity of the police officers’ performance of official functions. Thus, the Court ruled in People v.
Llamado:
In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the
prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute
such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellant’s self-serving and uncorroborated
denial. (Emphasis supplied.)
Contrary to accused-appellant’s challenge to the validity of the buy-bust operation, the Court categorically stated in
Quinicot v. People that a prior surveillance or test buy is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, as long as the
operatives are accompanied by their informant, thus:
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation.
There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities
the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary,
especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of
good police work. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior
surveillance. In the instant case, having been accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling the
dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any prior surveillance before they undertook the buy-bust
operation.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Furthermore, accused-appellant’s contention that the buy-bust team should have procured a search warrant for the
validity of the buy-bust operation is misplaced. The Court had the occasion to address this issue in People v. Doria:

Page 23 of 63
We also hold that the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant Doria is not unlawful. Warrantless arrests are allowed in
three instances as provided by Section 5 of Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, to wit:
"Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.¾A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to
be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another."
Under Section 5 (a), as above-quoted, a person may be arrested without a warrant if he "has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." Appellant Doria was caught in the act of committing an offense. When
an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, the police are not only authorized but
duty-bound to arrest him even without a warrant.
The Court reiterated such ruling in People v. Agulay:
Accused-appellant contends his arrest was illegal, making the sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from him inadmissible
in evidence. Accused-appellant’s claim is devoid of merit for it is a well-established rule that an arrest made after an
entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid "warrantless arrest," in line with the
provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court, to wit:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.¾A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
offense.
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. If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal
safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.
Second Issue:
The chain of custody of the seized drug was unbroken
Accused-appellant contends that the arresting officers did not comply with the requirements for the handling of seized
dangerous drugs as provided for under Sec. 21(1) of RA 9165:
Section 21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Equipment.¾The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
be given a copy thereof; (Emphasis supplied.)
In particular, accused-appellant argues that:
While the marking of the specimen was done in the place of incident by MADAC operative Soriano, the inventory of the
item was done at Cluster 4. There was no photograph made of the plastic sachet in the presence of the accused, media, any
elected local official, or the DOJ representatives, in clear violation of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165.
Based on such alleged failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the procedural requirements of Sec. 21, RA 9165,
accused-appellant posits that he should, therefore, be acquitted. Such reasoning is flawed.
In People v. Rosialda,

Page 24 of 63
the Court addressed the issue of chain of custody of dangerous drugs, citing People v. Rivera, as follows:
Anent the second element, Rosialda raises the issue that there is a violation of Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, particularly the
requirement that the alleged dangerous drugs seized by the apprehending officers be photographed "in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel."
Rosialda argues that such failure to comply with the provision of the law is fatal to his conviction.
This contention is untenable.
The Court made the following enlightening disquisition on this matter in People v. Rivera:
The procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs is outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 which stipulates:
be given a copy thereof.
The same is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165,
viz.:
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
be given a copy thereof: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long
as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of
the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant’s
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. Indeed, the implementing rules offer some flexibility
when a proviso added that ‘non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.’ The same provision clearly states as well, that it must still be
shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been
preserved.
This Court can no longer find out what justifiable reasons existed, if any, since the defense did not raise this issue during
trial. Be that as it may, this Court has explained in People v. Del Monte that what is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination
of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The existence of the dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for
the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the crime and the fact of
its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Thus, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established
beyond doubt. The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.
To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least
between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its
composition up to the time it was offered in evidence. (Emphasis supplied.)
Here, accused-appellant does not question the unbroken chain of evidence. His only contention is that the buy-bust team
did not inventory and photograph the specimen on site and in the presence of accused-appellant or his counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. However, as ruled by the
Court in Rosialda, as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, even though the procedural requirements provided
for in Sec. 21 of RA 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.
And as aptly ruled by the CA, the chain of custody in the instant case was not broken as established by the facts proved
during trial, thus:
Lastly, the contention of appellant, that the police officers failed to comply with the provisions of paragraph 1, Section 21
of R.A. No. 9165 for the proper procedure in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs, is untenable. Record shows
that Serrano marked the confiscated sachet of shabu in the presence of appellant at the place of incident and was turned
over properly to the investigating officer together with the marked buy-bust money. Afterwards, the confiscated plastic
sachet suspected to be containing "shabu" was brought to the forensic chemist for examination. Likewise, the members of
the buy-bust team executed their "Pinagsanib na Salaysay sa Pag-aresto" immediately after the arrest and at the trial,
Serrano positively identified the seized drugs. Indeed, the prosecution evidence had established the unbroken chain of
custody of the seized drugs from the buy-bust team, to the investigating officer and to the forensic chemist. Thus, there is

Page 25 of 63
no doubt that the prohibited drug presented before the court a quo was the one seized from appellant and that indeed, he
committed the crimes imputed against him.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA’s August 28, 2009 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03273 is hereby
AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Page 26 of 63
G.R. No. 190321
- versus -
SAMMY UMIPANG y ABDUL, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
SERENO, J.:
Before the Court is an appeal from the 21 May 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirming the 24 July 2007 Joint Decision of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Cases No. 14935-D-TG
and No. 14936-D-TG.
The RTC Decision convicted Sammy Umipang y Abdul (Umipang) for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Facts
The pertinent facts, as determined by the CA, are quoted as follows:
Acting on a tip from a confidential informant that a person named Sam was selling drugs along Cagayan de Oro Street in
Maharlika Village, Taguig City, a buy-bust team from the [Station Anti-Illegal Drugs - Special Operation Task Force
(SAID-SOTF)] of the Taguig City Police was dispatched on April 1, 2006 at around 6:00 in the evening. [Police Officer
(PO) 2] Gasid was assigned to act as poseur buyer and he was given a ₱ 500.00 marked money. The operation was
coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
Upon arrival at the area, PO2 Gasid and the confidential informant sauntered the length of the street while the other
members of the team strategically positioned themselves. The confidential informant saw the man called Sam standing
near a store. The confidential informant and PO2 Gasid then approached Sam. Straight off, the confidential informant
said "Sam, pa-iskor kami." Sam replied "Magkano ang iiskorin nyo?" The confidential informant said "Five hundred
pesos." Sam took out three (3) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance with various price tags-500, 300, and
100. After making a choice, PO2 Gasid handed the marked ₱ 500.00 to Sam who received the same.
Upon receipt by Sam of the marked money, PO2 Gasid took off his cap as the pre-arranged signal that the sale had been
consummated. Sensing danger, Sam attempted to flee but PO2 Gasid immediately grabbed and arrested Sam. In a few
seconds, the rest of the buy-bust team [comprised of their team leader, Police Senior Inspector (PS/INSP.) Obong, Senior
Police Officer (SPO) 1 Mendiola, PO3 Hajan, PO3 Maglana, PO3 Salem, and PO1 Ragos] joined them. PO1 Ragos
handcuffed Sam. Five (5) more plastic sachets containing the same white crystalline substance were recovered from Sam.
PO2 Gasid marked the items with the initials "SAU" [which stood for Sammy A. Umipang, the complete name, including
the middle initial, of accused-appellant]. Sam was forthwith brought to the police station where he was booked,
investigated and identified as accused-appellant Sammy Umipang y Abdul. PO2 Gasid then brought the confiscated items
to the crime laboratory for testing. The specimens all tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, popularly
known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.
On the other hand, the defense presented accused-appellant himself and his brother Nash Rudin Umipang. According to
them:
In the evening of April 1, 2006, while they were sleeping, accused-appellant and his family were awakened by loud
knocking on the door. The persons outside shouted "Mga pulis kami. Buksan mo ang pinto kung hindi gigibain namin ito."
Accused-appellant obliged and opened the door. Five (5) policemen barged into his house and pointed a gun at him.
Against his will and amid the screams of his wife, accused-appellant was brought to a waiting vehicle and brought to the
police headquarters. At the Taguig Police station, PO2 Gasid tried to extort from him ₱ 100,000.00 for his release. He
denied the charges and that the alleged evidence were all "planted" by the police.
Consequently, the following charges were brought against Umipang:
That on or about the 1st day of April 2006, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell deliver and give away to poseur buyer PO2 Ruchyl Gasid, one heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance, which substance was found positive to the test for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as "shabu" a dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of ₱ 500.00,
in violation of the above-cited law.

Page 27 of 63
That on or about the 1st day of April 2006, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly possess and have in his custody and control five (5) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets, each containing
0.05 gram, 0.05 gram, 0.05 gram, 0.04 gram and 0.04 gram with a total weight of 0.23 gram of white crystalline
substance, which substances were found positive to the tests for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as
"shabu" a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
RTC Ruling
In its 24 July 2007 Joint Decision, the Pasig City RTC found accused-appellant guilty of violating Section 5 (Sale, Trading,
Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals) and Section 11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of R.A. 9165. The RTC
gave more weight to the testimonies of the arresting officers on how they conducted the buy-bust operation than to
accused-appellant’s claim of frame-up by the police. Thus, for violating Section 5 (Criminal Case No. 14935-D-TG),
Umipang was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱ 500,000. For violating Section 11 (Criminal Case
No. 14936-D-TG), he was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day as minimum to fourteen (14) years one (1) day as maximum and to pay a fine of ₱ 300,000.
CA Ruling
In its 21 May 2009 Decision, the CA affirmed in toto the 24 July 2007 Joint Decision of the RTC. According to the
appellate court, the elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs were
present and established. Thus, it no longer disturbed the RTC’s assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Furthermore, the CA found that there was no showing of improper motive on the part of the police officers. With the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, it ruled against the denials of accused-appellant, and his
defense of frame-up.
We have consistently declared that a review of the factual findings of the lower courts is not a function that is normally
undertaken in appeals before this Court. However, after a careful scrutiny of the CA Decision, we find it proper to
reevaluate the factual issues surrounding the present case, especially since it is not clear from the Decision whether the
proper implementation of the strict procedural safeguards laid down in R.A. 9165 was established.
Issue
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the testimonial evidence of the prosecution witnesses were
sufficient to convict accused-appellant of the alleged sale and possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which are
violations under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of R.A. 9165.
Discussion
Accused-appellant argues
that since there were two versions presented during trial - one, that of the prosecution; and the other, that of the accused -
the latter version must be adopted, because the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties should not
take precedence over the presumption of innocence of the accused. He also contends that a surveillance of just 30 minutes
was insufficient to establish that Umipang was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. Lastly, accused-appellant claims that
the fact of possession of the confiscated plastic sachets was not clearly established, and that the evidence allegedly
confiscated from him was merely planted.
Alluding to the testimony of PO1 Ragos, he points out that the former did not see him holding the drugs, and that the
sachet was shown only to PO1 Ragos by PO2 Gasid.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) prays for the affirmation of the RTC Joint Decision in all
respects, as it was decided in accord with law and evidence.
The OSG argues

that the necessary elements to convict a person under Sections 5 and 11 were proven beyond reasonable doubt. It then
contends that, absent independent proof and substantiated evidence to the contrary, accused-appellant’s bare-faced denial
should be deemed merely as a self-serving statement that does not hold merit. Finally, the OSG asserts that, where there is
no evidence of improper motive on the part of the prosecution witness to testify falsely against accused-appellant, the
testimony must be given full faith and credence.
Substantive law requires strict observance of the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. 9165
At the outset, we take note that the present case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the SAID-SOTF. We
thus recall our pronouncement in People v. Garcia:
A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to
flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant
downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious
of which is its use as a tool for extortion. In People v. Tan, this Court itself recognized that "by the very nature of anti-

Page 28 of 63
narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which
sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the
secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra
vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses."
Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down in the law (R.A. No.
9165) for the police to strictly follow. The prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have been followed in
proving the elements of the defined offense.
(Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)

Section 21 of R.A. 9165 delineates the mandatory procedural safeguards
that are applicable in cases of buy-bust operations:

Section 21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the
same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the
volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does
not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally
issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shallbe issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the
next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA shall
within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of the same, in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up
the guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the
offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled
for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s which,
together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction
over the case. In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the
Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all of the above
proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or
fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours
before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the
public attorney's office to represent the former; x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
Congress introduced another complementing safeguard through Section 86 of R.A. 9165, which requires the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Philippine National Police (PNP), and Bureau of Customs (BOC) to maintain close
coordination with PDEA in matters of illegal drug-related operations:
Section 86.Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and
Transitory Provisions. - x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as
provided for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by the NBI,
PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the PDEA shall be the

Page 29 of 63
lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided, further,
That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug related
matters. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, the 2002 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 (IRR) set the following procedure for maintaining close
coordination:
SECTION 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and
Transitory Provisions. — x x x.
xxx xxx xxx
(a) Relationship/Coordination between PDEA and Other Agencies — The PDEA shall be the lead agency in the
enforcement of the Act, while the PNP, the NBI and other law enforcement agencies shall continue to conduct anti-drug
operations in support of the PDEA: Provided, that the said agencies shall, as far as practicable, coordinate with the PDEA
prior to anti-drug operations; Provided, further, that, in any case, said agencies shall inform the PDEA of their anti-drug
operations within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of the actual custody of the suspects or seizure of said drugs and
substances, as well as paraphernalia and transport equipment used in illegal activities involving such drugs and/or
substances, and shall regularly update the PDEA on the status of the cases involving the said anti-drug
operations; Provided, furthermore, that raids, seizures, and other anti-drug operations conducted by the PNP, the NBI,
and other law enforcement agencies prior to the approval of this IRR shall be valid and authorized; Provided, finally, that
nothing in this IRR shall deprive the PNP, the NBI, other law enforcement personnel and the personnel of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from effecting lawful arrests and seizures in consonance with the provisions of Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. (Emphasis supplied.)
Given the nature of buy-bust operations and the resulting preventive procedural safeguards crafted in R.A. 9165, courts
must tread carefully before giving full credit to the testimonies of those who conducted the operations. Although we have
ruled in the past that mere procedural lapses in the conduct of a buy-bust operation are not ipso facto fatal to the
prosecution’s cause, so long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved,
courts must still thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that constitute a simple procedural lapse from those
that amount to a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards drawn by the law. Consequently, Section 21(a)
of the IRR provides for a saving clause in the procedures outlined under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which serves as a guide
in ascertaining those procedural aspects that may be relaxed under justifiable grounds, viz:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Equipment. — x x x:
be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items; (Emphasis
supplied.)
We have reiterated that "this saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and
thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds" after which, "the prosecution must show that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved."
To repeat, noncompliance with the required procedure will not necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused if: (1) the
noncompliance is on justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending team.
Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of law enforcers,
we stress that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply
brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. The provisions were crafted by Congress as safety precautions to
address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. In People v.
Coreche,
we explained thus:
The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence found legislative expression in
Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered
requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the drugs the duty to "immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her

Page 30 of 63
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof". (Emphasis supplied.)
Consequently, in a line of cases,
we have lain emphasis on the importance of complying with the prescribed procedure. Stringent compliance is justified
under the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused.
Otherwise, "the procedure set out in the law will be mere lip service."
Material irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operations
In the recent case of People v. Relato, we reiterated the following:
In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165,
the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove
the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of
the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts
about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. Any gap renders the case for the State
less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, Relato deserves
exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense of frame-up became plausible in the face of the weakness of the
Prosecution’s evidence of guilt.

The conduct of the buy-bust operations was peppered with defects, which raises doubts on the preservation of the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items from accused-appellant.
First, there were material inconsistencies in the marking of the seized items. According to his testimony, PO2 Gasid used
the initials of the complete name, including the middle initial, of accused-appellant in order to mark the confiscated
sachets. The marking was done immediately after Umipang was handcuffed. However, a careful perusal of the testimony
of PO2 Gasid would reveal that his prior knowledge of the complete initials of accused-appellant, standing for the latter’s
full name, was not clearly established. Thus, doubt arises as to when the plastic sachets were actually marked, as shown by
PO2 Gasid’s testimony:
A [PO2 Gasid]: We conducted a buy-bust operation on April 1, 2006.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Against whom did you conduct this buy-bust operation?
A: Against alias Sam, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What prompted you to conduct this operation against this alias Sam?
A: We received information from our confidential informant that one alias Sam is selling shabu at Cagayan De Oro Street,
Maharlika Village, Taguig.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Aside from this information that you received from your informant, was there anything more that
your informant told you about the real identity of this alias Sam?
A: Nothing more, sir, he gave us only his alias, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: So, after you have taken the item and paid alias Sam and then you executed the pre-arranged signal
that you have already purchased from him, what happened then?
A: After I made the pre-arranged signal, mabilis po yung mata ni alias Sam, para ho bang balisa, siguro napansin nya na
hindi lang kami dalawa (2), aakma syang tatakbo, sinunggaban ko na po sya.
PROSEC. SANTOS: So, you held Sam already during that time?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened after that?
A: I introduced myself as police officer and at that time I arrested him.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What about your companions who serves [sic] as your immediate back up, what happened to them
when you were already hold and arrested [sic] this alias Sam?

Page 31 of 63
A: I noticed my companions approaching us.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: And what did your colleague Ragos do when he arrived at your place?
A: When he arrived at the place, after arresting alias Sam, he was the one who handcuffed him.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Was there anything more that was done in that place of occurrence during that time, Officer?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Tell us please?
A: After arresting alias Sam, I frisk [sic] him for the remaining items he showed me and the buy-bust money I gave him.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: Was there anything that you and your team did in the items that you confiscated from the possession
of the accused during that time and the shabu that you bought from him?
A: I marked the items I confiscated at the place of incident.
PROSEC. SANTOS: How did you marked [sic] the item that you bought from this alias Sam?
A: SAU, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: And what does that stand for? That SAU?
A: Stands for the initials of alias Sam.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Is that the only thing that you placed on the plastic sachet containing the shabu that you bought from
this alias Sam during that time?
A: I marked the shabu I bought as SAU-1.
PROSEC. SANTOS: How about the other five (5) plastic sachets containing the suspected shabu, what happened to that?
A: I marked them as SAU-2, SAU-3, SAU-4, SAU-5 and SAU-6.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: Now, after you have marked and inventoried the items that you bought and confiscated from this alias
Sam during that time, what else happened?
A: After the inventory of the evidences, I turn [sic] them over to the investigator.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Where did you turn these items to your investigator?
A: At the office, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Who was your investigator during that time?
A: PO1 Alexander Saez, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: When you turn these items to your investigator, where were you?
A: At the office, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened to these items that you turn it over [sic] to your investigator?
A: He made a request for laboratory examination of the items confiscated.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: Now, Officer, this Sam when you have already arrested him, were you able to know his real name?
A: Yes, sir.

Page 32 of 63
PROSEC. SANTOS: What was his real name?
A: Sammy Umipang, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Is he present here in Court?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: When you arrived at the place, by the way, where was your target area, Mr. Witness?
A: Cagayan De Oro Street, Barangay Maharlika, Taguig City.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: When you were there, you did not buy [sic] anybody to buy shabu from the accused?
A: No, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, you did not conduct any test buy?
A: No, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Nor did you make any inquiry with Cagayan De Oro Street regarding the accused?
A: Not anymore, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: At that moment, you don’t have any idea regarding the identity of the accused and also whether he
was engaged in illegal activity?
A: Regarding the identity, he was described by the informant.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: It was only the informant who knows the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And also your other members, they did not know the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
A clearer picture of what transpired during the buy-bust operation, from the marking of the confiscated items to the arrest
of accused-appellant, is provided by the testimony of PO1 Ragos:
PROSEC. SANTOS: And what is the effect to you of the act of Gasid taking off his cap?
A: That is the sign that he already bought the shabu.
PROSEC. SANTOS: When you saw Gasid acting that way, being the back up of him during that time, what did you do?
A: I run [sic] towards them.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Were you able to go near him when you run [sic] towards him?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened?
A: I saw him holding Sam.
PROSEC. SANTOS: When you saw Gasid already holding Sam, what did you do?
A: I handcuffed Sam.
PROSEC. SANTOS: After that, what happened?
A: The items confiscated by Gasid were marked with his initials.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Did you see Gasid marking those things that he took from this Sam during that time?

Page 33 of 63
A: Yes, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: What marked [sic] did he put on these plastic sachets?
A: SAU, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Do you know what SAU connotes?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Tell us?
A: Sammy Abdul Umipang.
PROSEC. SANTOS: After that, what happened?
A: He was apprising [sic] of his constitutional rights.
PROSEC. SANTOS: After this person was apprised of his rights, was there anything more that was done?
A: We went back to the office.
PROSEC. SANTOS: All the members of the team went back to the office?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: And together with this alias Sam?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC. SANTOS: What happened in your office?
A: We turn [sic] over the evidence to the investigator.
PROSEC. SANTOS: Who was your investigator during that time?
A: PO1 Saez.
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: So, after the team has turn [sic] over the evidences to your investigator in the person of Officer Saez,
was there anything more that transpired in relation to this event, this incident?
A: We prepared an affidavit of arrest.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And this information regarding the accused was relayed to you by your immediate superior?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And this information was the first information regarding the accused, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: What was told you was that your target person was alias Sam?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: No photographs of alias Sam was shown to you?
A: None, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: You have no derogatory records of this alias Sam in your office?
A: None, sir.

Page 34 of 63
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: You have no warrant of arrest?
A: None, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: This alias Sam was not included in your watch list?
A: No, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, the markings were placed on the plastic sachets?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: After that Mr. Witness, you brought the accused together with the items to your office?
PROSEC. SANTOS: Already answered, Your Honor. We are just repeating the same pattern, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you investigated the accused?
A: No more, it was PO1 Saez who investigated the accused.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: So, you did not ask the full name of the accused?
A: It was PO1 Saez who investigated him, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: It was PO1 Saez who got his full name and on you [sic] part, that was the first time that you were
able to learned [sic] the full name of the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Because you knew him only as alias Sam?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: How about Officer Gasid, it was also the first time that he learned the full name of the accused?
A: Maybe not, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you mentioned that it was Officer Saez who delivered the items to the crime lab?
A: No sir, it was Gasid.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: But you were not with him when he delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: No further question, Your Honor.
PROSEC. SANTOS: No re-direct, Your Honor. x x x
The circumstances surrounding the marking of the seized items are suspect. From their testimonies during the trial, PO2
Gasid and PO1 Ragos both admitted that they only knew their target by the name "Sam." They both testified that, after
accused-appellant was handcuffed, frisked, and read his rights, they immediately brought him to the police precinct. They
then said that it was a certain PO1 Saez who investigated him. In fact, in their joint affidavit, PO2 Gasid and PO1 Ragos
stated thus:
Na dinala namin siya [accused] sa aming opisina para sa pagsisiyasat at pagtatanong tungkol sa detalye ng kaniyang
pagkatao at sa layuning masampahan ng kaukulang reklamo sa paglabag ng Section 5 and 11 of RA 9165.
Evidence on record does not establish that PO2 Gasid had prior knowledge of the complete name of accused-appellant,
including the middle initial, which enabled the former to mark the seized items with the latter’s complete initials. This
suspicious, material inconsistency in the marking of the items raises questions as to how PO2 Gasid came to know about
the initials of Umipang prior to the latter’s statements at the police precinct, thereby creating a cloud of doubt on the

Page 35 of 63
issues of where the marking really took place and whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
preserved. All that was established was that it was PO1 Saez who asked accused-appellant about the latter’s personal
circumstances, including his true identity, and that the questioning happened when accused-appellant was already at the
police station. We thus reiterate:
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are
seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized
contraband[s] are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.
The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related
evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, "planting", or contamination of evidence.
Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark
the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties, the doctrinal fallback of every drug-related prosecution. Thus, in People v.
Laxa and People v. Casimiro, we held that the failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the
accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. These rulings are refinements
of our holdings in People v. Mapa and People v. Dismuke that doubts on the authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned
by the prosecution’s failure to prove that the evidence submitted for chemical analysis is the same as the one seized from
the accused suffice to warrant acquittal on reasonable doubt.

It is true that the failure of the arresting officers to mark the seized items at the place of arrest does not by itself impair the
integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.
We have already clarified that the marking upon "immediate" confiscation of the prohibited items contemplates even that
which was done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.
We will analyze this possible seed of doubt that has been planted by the unexplained marking of the shabu with the
complete initials of Umipang, together with the other alleged irregularities.
Second, the SAID-SOTF failed to show genuine and sufficient effort to seek the third-party representatives enumerated
under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. Under the law, the inventory and photographing of seized items must be conducted in
the presence of a representative from the media, from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and from any elected public
official. The testimony of PO2 Gasid, as quoted below, is enlightening:
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you also made the certificate of inventory, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And since this is a drug operation, you are required by law to make a certificate of inventory?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And that inventory, you are required by law that there should be a signature of any representative
from the media, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And also representative from the Department of Justice, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And also elected official, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: I’m showing to you Mr. Witness your certificate of inventory, do you confirm that there are no
signatures placed by any member of the media, representative from the Department of Justice and any elected official?
A: Yes, sir, there is none, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: And there appears to be an initial of RS above the type written name Sammy Umipang, who wrote
this initial RS?
A: That stands for refuse [sic] to sign, sir.
ATTY. HERNANDEZ: Who refuse [sic] to sign?
A: Sammy Umipang, sir.

Page 36 of 63
xxx xxx xxx
PROSEC. SANTOS: Why was the certificate of inventory not witnesses [sic] and signed by any members of the media, the
DOJ and elected officials, Officer?
A: That time there is no available representative, sir.
COURT: How did you exert effort to locate available representative of those officers or persons in the certificate of
inventory?
A: The investigator contacted representative from the media, Your Honor.
COURT: What barangay this incident happened?
A: Barangay Maharlika, Your Honor.
COURT: Did you talk to the barangay captain?
A: No, Your Honor.
COURT: What about the barangay councilman?
A: No, Your Honor.
Indeed, the absence of these representatives during the physical inventory and the marking of the seized items does not
per se render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. However, we take note that, in this case, the SAID-SOTF did
not even attempt to contact the barangay chairperson or any member of the barangay council. There is no indication that
they contacted other elected public officials. Neither do the records show whether the police officers tried to get in touch
with any DOJ representative. Nor does the SAID-SOTF adduce any justifiable reason for failing to do so - especially
considering that it had sufficient time from the moment it received information about the activities of the accused until the
time of his arrest.
Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the part of the apprehending police officers to look for the
said representatives pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer statement that representatives were unavailable -
without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the
circumstances - is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse. We stress that it is the prosecution who has the positive duty to
establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A.
9165,
or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so.

Third, the SAID-SOTF failed to duly accomplish the Certificate of Inventory and to take photos of the seized items
pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. As pointed out by the defense during trial,
the Certificate of Inventory did not contain any signature, including that of PO2 Gasid - the arresting officer who prepared
the certificate
- thus making the certificate defective. Also, the prosecution neither submitted any photograph of the seized items nor
offered any reason for failing to do so. We reiterate that these requirements are specifically outlined in and required to be
implemented by Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165.
Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused from the crimes of
which he or she was convicted.
This is especially true when the lapses in procedure were "recognized and explained in terms of [] justifiable grounds."
There must also be a showing "that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some
justifiable consideration/reason."
However, when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. 9165),
serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence.
This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in
the performance of official duties.
As a result, the prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating
reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.
For the arresting officers’ failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from the totality of the procedural
lapses committed in this case that the arresting officers deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165.
These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of
allegations of frame-up. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in favor of accused-appellant, "as every
fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt."

Page 37 of 63
As a final note, we reiterate our past rulings calling upon the authorities "to exert greater efforts in combating the drug
menace using the safeguards that our lawmakers have deemed necessary for the greater benefit of our society."
The need to employ a more stringent approach to scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution - especially when the pieces
of evidence were derived from a buy-bust operation - "redounds to the benefit of the criminal justice system by protecting
civil liberties and at the same time instilling rigorous discipline on prosecutors."
WHEREFORE, the appealed 21 May 2009 CA Decision affirming the 24 July 2007 RTC Joint Decision is SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Sammy Umipang y Abdul is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges in Criminal Cases No. 14935-D-TG and
No. 14936-D-TG on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to
immediately RELEASE accused-appellant from custody, unless he is detained for some other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.

Page 38 of 63
G.R. No. 191366 December 13, 2010

vs.
ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y NGELES, EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, and
RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, Accused-Appellants.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the August 7, 2009 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269, which
affirmed the February 13, 2008 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City (RTC), in Criminal Case
No. 2006-0525-D, finding the accused guilty of violating Section 13, in relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 for Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings.
The Facts
The Information indicting the accused reads:
That on or about the 2nd day of September 2006, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ARNOLD MARTINEZ y ANGELES, EDGAR DIZON y FERRER, REZIN
MARTINEZ y CAROLINO, ROLAND DORIA y DIAZ and RAFAEL GONZALES y CUNANAN, without authority of law,
confederating together, acting jointly and helping one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally, sniff
and possess dangerous drugs (shabu residues) contained in empty plastic sachets and rolled aluminum foil, during a
party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the proximate company of at least two (2) person[s].
Contrary to Section 13, Article II, R.A. 9165.3
As culled from the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, Police Officer 1 Bernard Azardon (PO1 Azardon), one of the
apprehending officers, and Police Inspector Lady Ellen Maranion (P/Insp. Maranion), the forensic chemical officer, it
appears that on September 2, 2006, at around 12:45 o’clock in the afternoon, PO1 Azardon was on duty at the Police
Community Precinct II along Arellano Street, Dagupan City, when a concerned citizen entered the precinct and reported
that a pot session was going on in the house of accused Rafael Gonzales (Gonzales) in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City.
Upon receipt of the report, PO1 Azardon, PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz), and members of the Special Weapons
and Tactics (SWAT) team hied to Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon inquiry from people in the area, the house of
Gonzales was located.
As the police officers entered the gate of the house, they saw accused Orlando Doria (Doria) coming out of the side door
and immediately arrested him. Inside the house, they saw accused Gonzales, Arnold Martinez (A. Martinez), Edgar
Dizon (Dizon), and Rezin Martinez (R. Martinez) in a room. The four were surprised by the presence of the police. In front
of them were open plastic sachets (containing shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum foil and pieces of used
aluminum foil.
The accused were arrested and brought to the police precinct. The items found in the room were seized and turned over to
the Pangasinan Provincial Police Crime Laboratory Officer, P/Insp. Maranion. The latter conducted a laboratory
examination on the seized items and all 115 plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49 pieces
of used aluminum foil tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused were subjected to a drug test and,
except for Doria, they were found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense, through its witnesses, accused A. Martinez, Dizon, and R. Martinez, claimed that in the morning of
September 2, 2006, the three of them were along Arellano Street in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City, to meet with a
certain Apper who bumped the passenger jeep of R. Martinez and who was to give the materials for the painting of said
jeep. As they were going around the subdivision looking for Apper, they saw Gonzales in front of his house and asked him
if he noticed a person pass by. While they were talking, Doria arrived. It was then that five to seven policemen emerged
and apprehended them. They were handcuffed and brought to the police station in Perez, Dagupan City, where they were
incarcerated and charged with sniffing shabu.
The Ruling of the RTC
The case against Doria was dismissed on a demurrer to evidence.
On February 13, 2008, the RTC rendered its decision, the dispositve portion of which reads:

Page 39 of 63
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ARNOLD MARTINEZ y Angeles,
EDGAR DIZON y Ferrer, REZIN MARTINEZ y Carolino, and RAFAEL GONZALES y Cunanan GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings defined
and penalized under Section 13 in relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165, and each of them is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine in the amount of P500,000.00, and to pay the cost of suit.
The subject items are hereby forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED.4
The RTC was of the view that the positive testimony of prosecution witness PO1 Azardon, without any showing of ill-
motive on his part, prevailed over the defenses of denial and alibi put up by the accused. The accused were held to have
been in constructive possession of the subject items. A conspiracy was also found present as there was a common purpose
to possess the dangerous drug.
The Ruling of the CA
The CA ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the RTC as to the constructive possession of the
dangerous drugs by the accused. It further held that although the procedure regarding the custody and disposition of
evidence prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, the integrity and evidentiary value of
the evidence were nonetheless safeguarded. The CA was of the view that the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty was not sufficiently controverted by the accused.
Not in conformity, the accused now interposes this appeal before this Court praying for the reversal of the subject
decision, presenting the following
Assignment of Errors
For accused Arnold Martinez, Edgar Dizon and Rezin Martinez
1. The lower court erred in finding the accused-appellants to be having a pot session at the time of their
arrest;
2. The lower court erred in not seeing through the antics of the police to plant the shabu paraphernalia to
justify the arrest of the accused-appellants without warrant;
3. The lower court erred in not finding that the corpus delicti has not been sufficiently established;
4. The lower court erred in not finding the uncorroborated testimony of PO1 Azardon insufficient to
convict the accused-appellants of the crime charged;
5. The lower court erred in not acquitting the accused-appellants.
For accused Rafael Gonzales
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO OVERTHROW THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUG.
After an assiduous assessment of the evidentiary records, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
the accused. The principal reasons are 1] that the evidence against the accused are inadmissible; and 2] that granting the
same to be admissible, the chain of custody has not been duly established.
Illegal Arrest, Search and Seizure
Indeed, the accused is estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to raise such issue before
arraignment.5 However, this waiver is limited only to the arrest. The legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the
court over the person of the accused. A waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the
inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. 6
Although the admissibility of the evidence was not raised as in issue by the accused, it has been held that this Court has
the power to correct any error, even if unassigned, if such is necessary in arriving at a just decision, 7 especially when the

Page 40 of 63
transcendental matter of life and liberty is at stake.8 While it is true that rules of procedure are intended to promote rather
than frustrate the ends of justice, they nevertheless must not be met at the expense of substantial justice. Time and again,
this Court has reiterated the doctrine that the rules of procedure are mere tools intended to facilitate the attainment of
justice, rather than frustrate it. Technicalities should never be used to defeat substantive rights.9 Thus, despite the
procedural lapses of the accused, this Court shall rule on the admissibility of the evidence in the case at bench. The clear
infringement of the accused’s right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be ignored.
The State cannot, in a manner contrary to its constitutional guarantee, intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as
into their houses, papers and effects.10 Sec. 2, Art. III, of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 2. - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches
and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.
This constitutional guarantee, however, is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures without warrant.
Arrests and seizures in the following instances are allowed even in the absence of a warrant — (i) warrantless search
incidental to a lawful arrest;11 (ii) search of evidence in "plain view;" (iii) search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented
warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) stop and frisk; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances. 12
This case would appear to fall under either a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest or a plain view search, both of
which require a lawful arrest in order to be considered valid exceptions to the constitutional guarantee. Rule 113 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the circumstances under which a warrantless arrest is lawful. Thus:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts
or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving
final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.
A review of the facts reveal that the arrest of the accused was illegal and the subject items were confiscated as an incident
thereof. According to the testimony of PO1 Azardon and his Joint Affidavit 13 with PO1 Dela Cruz, they proceeded to, and
entered, the house of accused Gonzales based solely on the report of a concerned citizen that a pot session was going on in
said house, to wit:
Q: I go back to the information referred to you by the informant, did he not tell you how many persons were actually
conducting the pot session?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When you went to the place of Rafael Gonzales, of course you were not armed with a search warrant, correct?
A: None, sir.
Q: Before the information was given to you by your alleged informant, you did not know personally Rafael Gonzales?
A: I have not met [him] yet but I heard his name, sir.
Q: When this informant told you that he was told that there was [an] ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael Gonzales,
was this report to you placed in the police blotter before you proceeded to the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: I think it was no longer recorded, sir.
Q: In other words, you did not even bother to get the personal data or identity of the person who told you that he was
allegedly informed that there was an ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: What I know is that he is a jeepney driver of a downtown jeepney but he does not want to be identified because he was
afraid, sir.

Page 41 of 63
Q: And likewise, he did not inform you who told him that there was an ongoing pot session in the house of Rafael
Gonzales?
A: No more, sir.
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you immediately formed a group and went to the place of
Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
xxx
Q: When you were at the open gate of the premises of Rafael Gonzales, you could not see what is happening inside the
house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You did not also see the alleged paraphernalia as well as the plastic sachet of shabu on the table while you were outside
the premises of the property of Rafael Gonzales?
xxx
Q: Before they entered the premises they could not see the paraphernalia?
COURT: Answer.
A: Of course because they were inside the room, how could we see them, sir.
Q: But still you entered the premises, only because a certain person who told you that he was informed by another person
that there was an ongoing pot session going on inside the house of Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And that is the only reason why you barged in inside the house of Rafael Gonzales and you arrested the persons you
saw?
A: Yes, sir.14
Paragraph (c) of Rule 113 is clearly inapplicable to this case. Paragraphs (a) and (b), on the other hand, may be applicable
and both require probable cause to be present in order for a warrantless arrest to be valid. Probable cause has been held to
signify a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
cautious man’s belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. 15
Although this Court has ruled in several dangerous drugs cases16 that tipped information is sufficient probable cause to
effect a warrantless search,17 such rulings cannot be applied in the case at bench because said cases involve either a buy-
bust operation or drugs in transit, basically, circumstances other than the sole tip of an informer as basis for the arrest.
None of these drug cases involve police officers entering a house without warrant to effect arrest and seizure based solely
on an informer’s tip. The case of People v. Bolasa18 is informative on this matter.
In People v. Bolasa, an anonymous caller tipped off the police that a man and a woman were repacking prohibited drugs at
a certain house. The police immediately proceeded to the house of the suspects. They walked towards the house
accompanied by their informer. When they reached the house, they peeped inside through a small window and saw a man
and woman repacking marijuana. They then entered the house, introduced themselves as police officers, confiscated the
drug paraphernalia, and arrested the suspects. This Court ruled:
The manner by which accused-appellants were apprehended does not fall under any of the above-enumerated categories.
Perforce, their arrest is illegal. First, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time of their arrest,
accused-appellants had just committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime. Second, the arresting officers
had no personal knowledge that a crime was committed nor did they have any reasonable ground to believe that accused-
appellants committed it. Third, accused-appellants were not prisoners who have escaped from a penal establishment.
Neither can it be said that the objects were seized in plain view. First, there was no valid intrusion. As already discussed,
accused-appellants were illegally arrested. Second, the evidence, i.e., the tea bags later on found to contain marijuana, was
not inadvertently discovered. The police officers intentionally peeped first through the window before they saw and
ascertained the activities of accused-appellants inside the room. In like manner, the search cannot be categorized as a
search of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless search, a customs search, or a stop and frisk; it cannot even fall under
exigent and emergency circumstances, for the evidence at hand is bereft of any such showing.

Page 42 of 63
On the contrary, it indicates that the apprehending officers should have conducted first a surveillance considering that the
identities and address of the suspected culprits were already ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and
determining the existence of probable cause for arresting accused-appellants, they should have secured a search warrant
prior to effecting a valid arrest and seizure. The arrest being illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was likewise illegal.
Every evidence thus obtained during the illegal search cannot be used against accused-appellants; hence, their acquittal
must follow in faithful obeisance to the fundamental law.19
It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant must be based upon probable cause, which
means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when the suspicion,
that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing an offense, is based on actual facts, that is, supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. 20
As to paragraph (a) of Section 5 of Rule 113, the arresting officers had no personal knowledge that at the time of the arrest,
accused had just committed, were committing, or were about to commit a crime, as they had no probable cause to enter
the house of accused Rafael Gonzales in order to arrest them. As to paragraph (b), the arresting officers had no personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that would lead them to believe that the accused had just committed an offense. As
admitted in the testimony of PO1 Azardon, the tip originated from a concerned citizen who himself had no personal
knowledge of the information that was reported to the police:
Q: Mr. Witness, you claimed that the reason for apprehending all the accused was based on a tip-off by an informant?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What exactly [did] that informant tell you?
A: He told us that somebody told him that there was an ongoing pot session in the house of one of the accused Rafael
Gonzales, sir.
Q: You mean to say that it was not the informant himself to whom the information originated but from somebody else?
A: That was what he told me, sir.
Q: Because of that you proceeded to where the alleged pot session was going on? [No Answer]
Q: Did you[r] informant particularly pinpointed [sic] to where the alleged pot session was going on?
A: No more because he did not go with us, sir.
Q: So you merely relied on what he said that something or a pot session was going on somewhere in Arellano but you don’t
know the exact place where the pot session was going on?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And your informant has no personal knowledge as to the veracity of the alleged pot session because he claimed
that he derived that information from somebody else?
A: This is what he told us that somebody told him that there was an ongoing pot session, sir.
Q: Despite of [sic] that information you proceeded to where?
A: Trinidad Subdivision, sir.
xxx
Q: Mr. Witness, did your informant named [sic] those included in the alleged pot session?
A: No, sir.
Q: That was, because your informant don’t [sic] know physically what was really happening there?
A: He was told by another person that there was an ongoing pot session there, sir. 21 [Emphasis supplied]
Neither can it be said that the subject items were seized in plain view. The elements of plainview are: (a) a prior valid
intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
(b) the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are; (c) the evidence must
be immediately apparent; and, (d) "plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 22

Page 43 of 63
The evidence was not inadvertently discovered as the police officers intentionally entered the house with no prior
surveillance or investigation before they discovered the accused with the subject items. If the prior peeking of the police
officers in Bolasa was held to be insufficient to constitute plain view, then more so should the warrantless search in this
case be struck down. Neither can the search be considered as a search of a moving vehicle, a consented warrantless search,
a customs search, a stop and frisk, or one under exigent and emergency circumstances.
The apprehending officers should have first conducted a surveillance considering that the identity and address of one of
the accused were already ascertained. After conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause,
then a search warrant should have been secured prior to effecting arrest and seizure. The arrest being illegal, the ensuing
search as a result thereof is likewise illegal. Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is
deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. 23 The subject items seized during
the illegal arrest are thus inadmissible. The drug, being the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, its inadmissibility thus precludes conviction, and calls for the acquittal of the accused.
As has been noted previously by this Court, some lawmen, prosecutors and judges have glossed over illegal searches and
seizures in cases where law enforcers are able to present the alleged evidence of the crime, regardless of the methods by
which they were obtained. This attitude tramples on constitutionally-guaranteed rights in the name of law enforcement. It
is ironic that such enforcement of the law fosters the breakdown of our system of justice and the eventual denigration of
society. While this Court appreciates and encourages the efforts of law enforcers to uphold the law and to preserve the
peace and security of society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by
the Constitution and the law.24
Chain of Custody
Even granting that the seized items are admissible as evidence, the acquittal of the accused would still be in order for
failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the chain of custody requirement in dangerous drugs cases.
The accused contend that the identity of the seized drug was not established with moral certainty as the chain of custody
appears to be questionable, the authorities having failed to comply with Sections 21 and 86 of R.A. No. 9165, and
Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) Resolution No. 03, Series of 1979, as amended by Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990.
They argue that there was no prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), no inventory of
the confiscated items conducted at the crime scene, no photograph of the items taken, no compliance with the rule
requiring the accused to sign the inventory and to give them copies thereof, and no showing of how the items were
handled from the time of confiscation up to the time of submission to the crime laboratory for testing. Therefore,
the corpus delicti was not proven, thereby producing reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Thus, they assert that the
presumption of innocence in their favor was not overcome by the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty.
The essential requisites to establish illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (i) the accused was in possession of the
dangerous drug, (ii) such possession is not authorized by law, and (iii) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
dangerous drug.25 Additionally, this being a case for violation of Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165, an additional element of the
crime is (iv) the possession of the dangerous drug must have occurred during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting,
or in the proximate company of at least two (2) persons.
The existence of the drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and, thus, a
condition sine qua non for conviction. In order to establish the existence of the drug, its chain of custody must be
sufficiently established. The chain of custody requirement is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the
evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the
police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. 26Malillin v. People was the first in a growing number of cases to
explain the importance of chain of custody in dangerous drugs cases, to wit:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in
such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was
and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which
it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that
there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession
of the same.27
Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, 28 defines chain of custody as follows:
b. "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 of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and
the final disposition;

Page 44 of 63
Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, provides for safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity
of dangerous drugs seized, to wit:
SEC. 21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs
be given a copy thereof.
People v. Habana thoroughly discusses the proper procedure for the custody of seized or confiscated items in dangerous
drugs cases in order to ensure their identity and integrity, as follows:
Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who would then send it
by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand
a number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance from the suspect to place his marking on its
plastic container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the
plastic container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he observed to preserve
its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory.
If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and seal the same. In this way the substance
would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory
technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he should put his own mark on the plastic
container and seal it again with a new seal since the police officer’s seal has been broken. At the trial, the technician can
then describe the sealed condition of the plastic container when it was handed to him and testify on the procedure he took
afterwards to preserve its integrity.
If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer,
messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly one’s
possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or
substituted while in his care.29
Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further elaborates, and provides for, the
possibility of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure:
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. [Emphasis
supplied]
Accordingly, non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not necessarily render the seizure and
custody of the items void and invalid, provided that (i) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In this case, however, no justifiable ground is
found availing, and it is apparent that there was a failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items to ensure the identity of the corpus delicti from the time of seizure to the time of presentation in court. A
review of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary records of the case reveals irreparably broken
links in the chain of custody.
According to the apprehending police officers in their Joint Affidavit, the following were confiscated from the accused, to
wit:
a) Several pcs of used empty plastic sachets containing suspected shabu residues.
b) Eight used (8) disposable lighters ( two (2) pcs colored orange, two (2) pcs colored yellow, one (1) pc colored green &
one (1) pc colored white ).
c) Several pcs of used rolled aluminum foil containing suspected shabu residues.

Page 45 of 63
d) Several pcs of used cut aluminum foil containing suspected shabu residues.
e) One (1) pc glass tube containing suspected shabu residues.30
[Emphases supplied]
At the police station, the case, the accused, and the above-mentioned items were indorsed to Duty Investigator Senior
Police Officer 1 Pedro Urbano, Jr. (SPO1 Urbano) for proper disposition.31 A letter-request for laboratory examination was
prepared by Police Superintendent Edgar Orduna Basbag for the following items:
a) Pieces of used empty small plastic sachets with suspected shabu residues marked "DC&A-1."
b) Pieces of used rolled and cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu residues marked "DC&A-2."
c) Pieces of used cut aluminum foil with suspected shabu residues marked "DC&A-3."32
[Emphases supplied]
The letter-request and above-mentioned items were submitted to P/Insp. Maranion by SPO3 Froilan Esteban (SPO3
Esteban). Final Chemistry Report No. D-042-06L listed the specimens which were submitted for testing, to wit:
SPECIMENS SUBMITTED:
A - A1 to A115 - One Hundred fifteen (115) open transparent plastic sachet with tag each containing suspected shabu
residue without markings.
B - B1 to B11 - Eleven (11) rolled used aluminum foil with tag each containing suspected shabu residue without
markings.
C - C1 to C49 - Forty-nine (49) used aluminum foil with tag each containing suspected shabu residue without
markings.33
[Emphases supplied]
Three days after the subject items were seized, or on September 5, 2006, a Confiscation Receipt was issued by PO1
Azardon and PO1 Dela Cruz, which reads:
DCPS AID SOTG 05 September 2006
CONFISCATION RECEIPT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on or about 12:45 noon of September 4, 2006, we together with our precinct supervisor,
SPO4 Pedro Belen Jr., and SWAT members composed of SPO1 Marlon Decano, PO3 Manuel Garcia, PO2 Adriano
Cepiroto and PO1 Aldrin Guarin apprehended the following names of persons of ARNOLD MARTINEZ Y ANGELES, 37
yrs old, married, jobless, a resident of Lucao Dist., this city; EDGAR DIZON Y FERRER, 36 yrs old, single, tricycle driver,
a resident of 471 Lucao Dist., this city. REZIN MARTINEZ Y CAROLINO, 44 yrs old, married, jitney driver, a resident of
Lucao Disttrict this city; ROLAND DORIA Y DIAZ, 39 yrs old, married, businessman, resident of Cabeldatan, Malasiqui,
Pangasinan and RAFAEL GONZALES Y CUNANAN, 49 yrs old, separated, jobless and a resident of Trinidad Subd.,
Arellano-Bani this city.
Suspects were duly informed of their constitutional rights and were brought to Dagupan City Police Station, Perez Market
Site Dagupan City and indorsed to Duty Desk Officer to record the incident and the sachet of suspected Shabu
Paraphernalias were brought to PNP Crime Laboratory, Lingayen, Pangasinan for Laboratory Examination.
Seizing Officer:
(sgd.) (sgd.)
PO1 Bernard B Azardon PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz
Affiant Affiant
Remarks:
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed

Page 46 of 63
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed
Refused to Signed34
[Emphases supplied]
The 115 open transparent plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 (of the 49) pieces of used
aluminum foil, all containing shabu residue, as identified in the Final Chemistry Report, were presented in court and
marked as Exhibits "H" and series, "I" and series, and "J" and series, respectively. Said items were identified by PO1
Azardon and P/Insp. Maranion at the witness stand.35
The CA ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject items were properly preserved as there was sufficient
evidence to prove that the items seized from the accused were the same ones forwarded to the crime laboratory for
examination, as shown in the Confiscation Receipt and the letter-request for laboratory examination.
A review of the chain of custody indicates, however, that the CA is mistaken.
First, the apprehending team failed to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. After seizure and confiscation of the
subject items, no physical inventory was conducted in the presence of the accused, or their representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. Thus, no inventory was prepared, signed, and
provided to the accused in the manner required by law. PO1 Azardon, in his testimony,36 admitted that no photographs
were taken. The only discernable reason proffered by him for the failure to comply with the prescribed procedure was that
the situation happened so suddenly. Thus:
Q: But upon receiving such report from that jeepney driver you immediately formed a group and went to the place of
Rafael Gonzales?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Such that you did not even inform the PDEA before you barged in that place of Rafael Gonzales?
A: It was so suddenly, [sic] sir.
Q: And that explains the reason why you were not able to have pictures taken, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.37
[Emphasis supplied]
The Court does not find such to be a justifiable ground to excuse non-compliance. The suddenness of the situation cannot
justify non-compliance with the requirements. The police officers were not prevented from preparing an inventory and
taking photographs. In fact, Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides specifically that in case of warrantless
seizures, the inventory and photographs shall be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team. Whatever effect the suddenness of the situation may have had should have dissipated by the
time they reached the police station, as the suspects had already been arrested and the items seized. Moreover, it has been
held that in case of warrantless seizures nothing prevents the apprehending officer from immediately conducting the
physical inventory and photography of the items at their place of seizure, as it is more in keeping with the law’s intent to
preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.38
This Court has repeatedly reversed conviction in drug cases for failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165,
resulting in the failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Some cases are People
v. Garcia,39 People v. Dela Cruz,40 People v. Dela Cruz,41 People v. Santos, Jr.,42 People v. Nazareno,43 People v.
Orteza,44Zarraga v. People,45 and People v. Kimura.46
Second, the subject items were not properly marked. The case of People v. Sanchez is instructive on the requirement of
marking, to wit:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of "marking" of the
seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected
to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest.
Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are
the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done (1) in the presence
of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting
innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from
harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft.

Page 47 of 63
For greater specificity, "marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials
and signature on the item/s seized. x x x Thereafter, the seized items shall be placed in an envelope or an evidence bag
unless the type and quantity of the seized items require a different type of handling and/or container. The evidence bag or
container shall accordingly be signed by the handling officer and turned over to the next officer in the chain of
custody.47 [Emphasis in the original]
Nowhere in the testimony of PO1 Azardon or in his Joint Affidavit with PO1 Dela Cruz does it appear that the subject items
were at all marked. It was only in the letter-request for laboratory examination that the subject items were indicated to
have been marked with "DC&A-1," "DC&A-2" and "DC&A-3." There is no showing, however, as to who made those
markings and when they were made. Moreover, those purported markings were never mentioned when the subject items
were identified by the prosecution witnesses when they took the stand.
The markings appear to pertain to a group of items, that is, empty plastic sachets, rolled and cut aluminium foil, and cut
aluminium foil, but do not specifically pertain to any individual item in each group. Furthermore, it was only in the
Chemistry Report48 that the precise number of each type of item was indicated and enumerated. The Court notes that in
all documents prior to said report, the subject items were never accurately quantified but only described as
"pieces,"49 "several pcs,"50 and "shabu paraphernallas."51 Strangely, the Chemistry Report indicates that all the subject
items had "no markings," although each item was reported to have been marked by P/Insp. Maranion in the course of
processing the subject items during laboratory examination and testing. 52 Doubt, therefore, arises as to the identity of the
subject items. It cannot be determined with moral certainty that the subject items seized from the accused were the same
ones subjected to the laboratory examination and presented in court.
This Court has acquitted the accused for the failure and irregularity in the marking of seized items in dangerous drugs
cases, such as Zarraga v. People,53 People v. Kimura,54 and People v. Laxa.55
Third, the Confiscation Receipt relied upon by the prosecution and the courts below gives rise to more uncertainty.
Instead of being prepared on the day of the seizure of the items, it was prepared only three days after. More important, the
receipt did not even indicate exactly what items were confiscated and their quantity. These are basic information that a
confiscation receipt should provide. The only information contained in the Confiscation Receipt was the fact of arrest of
the accused and the general description of the subject items as "the sachet of suspected Shabu paraphernallas were
brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory." The receipt is made even more dubious by PO1 Azardon’s admission in his
testimony56 that he did not personally prepare the Confiscation Receipt and he did not know exactly who did so.
Fourth, according to the Certification 57 issued by the Dagupan Police Station, the subject items were indorsed by PO1 Dela
Cruz to Duty Investigator SPO1 Urbano for proper disposition. These were later turned over by SPO3 Esteban to P/Insp.
Maranion. There is, however, no showing of how and when the subject items were transferred from SPO1 Urbano to SPO3
Esteban.
Fifth, P/Insp. Maranion appears to be the last person in the chain of custody. No witness testified on how the subject
items were kept after they were tested prior to their presentation in court. This Court has highlighted similar shortcomings
in People v. Cervantes,58 People v. Garcia,59People v. Sanchez,60 and Malillin v. People.61
More irregularities further darken the cloud as to the guilt of the accused. Contrary to PO1 Azardon’s testimony 62 that they
were tipped off by a concerned citizen while at the police station, the Letter 63 to the Executive Director of the DDB states
that the apprehending officers were tipped off "while conducting monitoring/surveillance." Said letter also indicates, as
does the Confiscation Receipt, that the arrest and seizure occurred on September 4, 2006, and not September 2, 2006, as
alleged in the Information. It was also mentioned in the aforementioned Certification of the Dagupan Police and Joint
Affidavit of the police officers that a glass tube suspected to contain shabu residue was also confiscated from the accused.
Interestingly, no glass tube was submitted for laboratory examination.
In sum, numerous lapses and irregularities in the chain of custody belie the prosecution’s position that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the subject items were properly preserved. The two documents specifically relied on by the CA, the
Confiscation Receipt and the letter-request for laboratory examination, have been shown to be grossly insufficient in
proving the identity of the corpus delicti. The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the drug itself. This
means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential before the accused can be
found guilty.64
Regarding the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA provided in Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165, in People v. Sta.
Maria,65 this Court held that said section was silent as to the consequences of such failure, and said silence could not be
interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal, nor evidence obtained
pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible. Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the "lead agency" in
the investigation and prosecution of drug-related cases. Therefore, other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to
perform similar functions as the PDEA as long as illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter.
Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of the evidence but
only its weight.66Thus, had the subject items in this case been admissible, their evidentiary merit and probative value
would be insufficient to warrant conviction.

Page 48 of 63
It may be true that where no ill motive can be attributed to the police officers, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty should prevail. However, such presumption obtains only when there is no deviation from the
regular performance of duty.67 Where the official act in question is irregular on its face, the presumption of regularity
cannot stand.
In this case, the official acts of the law enforcers were clearly shown and proven to be irregular. When challenged by the
evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence of
the accused.68
This Court once again takes note of the growing number of acquittals for dangerous drugs cases due to the failure of law
enforcers to observe the proper arrest, search and seizure procedure under the law.69 Some bona fide arrests and seizures
in dangerous drugs cases result in the acquittal of the accused because drug enforcement operatives compromise the
integrity and evidentiary worth of the seized items. It behooves this Court to remind law enforcement agencies to exert
greater effort to apply the rules and procedures governing the custody, control, and handling of seized drugs.
It is recognized that strict compliance with the legal prescriptions of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. Thus, as
earlier stated, non-compliance therewith is not necessarily fatal. However, the lapses in procedure must be recognized,
addressed and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
seized must be shown to have been preserved.70
On a final note, this Court takes the opportunity to be instructive on Sec. 1171 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and Sec.
1572 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165, with regard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This Court notes
the practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for
possession is only and solely in the form of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not
incorrect, it would be more in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to
rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use, provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under
Sec. 15. The minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve
years and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months
rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate the
objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity to recover for a second chance at life.
In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs was only in the form of residue on the drug paraphernalia, and the
accused were found positive for use of dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence obtained
admissible, and the chain of custody intact, the law enforcers should have filed charges under Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for
use of dangerous drugs and, if there was no residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec. 14 73 (Possession of
Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or
Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the maximum penalty under Sec. 12 74 (Possession of Possession of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) shall be imposed on any person who shall possess
any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the maximum penalty
is imprisonment of four years and a fine of P50,000.00. In fact, under the same section, the possession of such equipment,
apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facie evidence that the possessor has used a dangerous drug and shall be
presumed to have violated Sec. 15.
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users, this Court thus calls on law enforcers and
prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the presence of dangerous drugs
is only and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory test required under Sec. 15 is positive for use of dangerous
drugs. In such cases, to afford the accused a chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving possession of
dangerous drugs should only be done when another separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere residue, is
found in the possession of the accused as provided for in Sec. 15.
WHEREFORE, the August 7, 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC-NO. 03269 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE and another judgment entered ACQUITTING the accused and ordering their immediate release from detention,
unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate
implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five days from receipt
of this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the Director-General, Philippine National Police,
and the Director-General, Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency, for their information and guidance.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Dagupan City, is directed to turn over the seized items to the Dangerous Drugs Board
for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.

Page 49 of 63
G.R. No. 184758
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
- versus -
SONNY SABDULA y AMANDA, Appellant.
DECISION
BRION, J.:
We review the February 8, 2008 decision
of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. H.C. No. 02726, which affirmed the January 29, 2007 decision
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 82, Quezon City. The RTC decision found appellant Sonny Sabdula y Amanda
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The trial court imposed on
him the penalty of life imprisonment.
THE FACTS
The prosecution charged the appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 before the RTC, under an
Information that states:
That on or about the 1st day of February, 2004, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused not being authorized by law
to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully, and unlawfully sell,
dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, 0.10 (zero point ten) gram of white
crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The prosecution presented Police Officer (PO) 2 Bernard Centeno at the trial, while the testimonies of PO3 Joselito
Chantengco and PO1 Alan Fortea became the subject of the parties’ stipulations. The appellant and Shirley Sabdula, on the
other hand, took the witness stand for the defense.
The evidence for the prosecution established that in the morning of February 1, 2004, a confidential informant told the
members of the Central Police District (CPD) in Baler, Quezon City about the illegal drug activities of one alias "Moneb" at
a squatter’s area in San Roque II, Quezon City. Acting on this information, operatives of the Station Intelligence and
Investigation Branch, Baler Police Station 2, CPD formed a buy-bust team composed of PO2 Centeno (the designated
poseur-buyer), PO1 Fortea, PO2 Rolando Daduya, PO1 Victor Porte, PO1 Louise Escarlan and PO1 Noel de Guzman.
At around 7:00 p.m., the buy-bust team and the informant went to the target area. When they arrived there, the informant
introduced PO2 Centeno as his "kumpare" to the appellant. PO2 Centeno asked the appellant if he could "score" two
hundred pesos worth of shabu.
The appellant responded by taking out a plastic sachet from his pocket, and handing it to PO2 Centeno. PO2 Centeno in
turn handed ₱200.00 to the appellant, and then gave the pre-arranged signal.
As the other members of the buy-bust team were rushing to the scene, PO2 Centeno introduced himself as a police officer
and arrested the appellant. Afterwards, he frisked the appellant and recovered the buy-bust money from his right pocket.
The police thereafter brought the appellant to the Baler Police Station 2 for investigation. Upon arrival, PO2 Centeno gave
the seized plastic sachet to SPO2 Salinel who, in turn, handed it to PO3 Chantengco who made a request for laboratory
examination that PO3 Centeno brought, together with the seized item to the Central Police District Crime Laboratory for
analysis.
Per Chemistry Report No. D-140-2004 of Engr. Leonard Jabonillo (the forensic chemist), the submitted specimen tested
positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
In his defense, the appellant testified that between 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. on January 29, 2004, he was on board a taxi at C5
Road, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, when a group of about five (5) men pointed their guns at him and told him to get out of
the vehicle. After he alighted, the armed men told him to board a mobile car
and brought him to the Baler Police Station. At the station, the police asked him to remove his clothes, and confiscated his
wallet, bracelet, cap and ₱300.00. The police then told him that he would be detained for drug charges and that he would
be jailed for 40 years.

Page 50 of 63
Shirley’s testimony was summarized by the RTC as follows:
x x x On February 1, 2004, she was at home when her brother was brought to Precinct 2, Baler[,] Quezon City. On January
29, 2004, at about 11:00 p.m., she received a text message from Allan Fortea, a policeman, telling her to call a certain
number if she loves her brother. The next day, at about 8:00 a.m., she called Fortea at the number he gave her. He told her
that his brother at Station 2 Baler Quezon City and asked her to produce ₱200,000.00 as ransom for her brother. She
asked him if he could talk to him. He allowed her and her brother to talk and the latter pleaded to her for help and cried.
Fortea told her not to talk in their dialect and took the phone. Fortea then told her to see him at SM North Edsa Car Park
on January 30, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. Fortea did not come. At about 9:00 p.m., she proceeded to Station 2 and met Fortea. He
asked her about the money but she told him she cannot afford it. Her brother was then detained when she failed to give in
to the said demand.
The RTC, in its decision dated January 29, 2007, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of
shabu, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. It also ordered the appellant to pay a ₱500,000.00
fine.
THE CASE BEFORE THE CA
The appellant appealed his conviction to the CA where his appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR. H.C. No. 02726. In its
decision of February 8, 2008, the CA affirmed the RTC decision.
The CA held that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of shabu: PO2 Centeno, the
poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant as the person who gave him shabu weighing 0.10 gram in exchange for
₱200.00. The CA also ruled that the buy-bust team were presumed to have performed their duties regularly. It added that
the appellant failed to impute improper motive on the part of the arresting officers.
The CA further held that the chain of custody over the seized plastic sachet were properly established, even if the time of
the actual marking of the seized item had not been shown.
THE PETITION
In his present petition,
the petitioner claims that he was not selling drugs when the police arrested him. He adds that his alibi was corroborated
by his sister, Shirley. He also argues that the seized plastic sachet was not properly marked by the police.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that the police were presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner. It further maintains that the chain of custody over the seized drug was not broken.
THE COURT’S RULING
After due consideration, we resolve to ACQUIT the appellant for the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
We restate at the outset the constitutional mandate that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies with the prosecution to overcome this presumption of innocence by
presenting the required quantum evidence; the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness
of the defense. If the prosecution fails to meet the required evidence, the defense does not even need to present evidence
in its own behalf; the presumption prevails and the accused should be declared acquitted.
I. No moral certainty on the corpus delicti
A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence
establishing each element of the crime, namely: the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal
drug and the existence of the corpus delicti.
In securing or sustaining a conviction under RA No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the
identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily
arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to
tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.
Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show
that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise,
the prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under RA No. 9165 fails.
a. The ‘Marking’ Requirement vis-à-vis the Chain of Custody Rule
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 (which implements R.A. No. 9165) defines chain of custody as
the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of

Page 51 of 63
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to the receipt in the forensic
laboratory, to safekeeping and the presentation in court for identification and eventual destruction.
The Court explained the importance of establishing the chain of custody over the seized drug in the recent case of People
of the Philippines v. Joselito Beran y Zapanta @ "Jose,"
as follows:
The purpose of the requirement of proof of the chain of custody is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized drug are preserved, as thus dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence. To be admissible, the
prosecution must establish by records or testimony the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit, from the time it came into
the possession of the police officers, until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, and all the way to
the time it was offered in evidence.
Thus, crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they
are seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her
initials and signature on the items seized. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, this Court has consistently held that
failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs casts reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus
delicti.
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately
marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence
serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are
seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching,
"planting," or contamination of evidence.
The records in the present case do not show that the police marked the seized plastic sachet immediately upon
confiscation, or at the police station. Nowhere in the court testimony of PO2 Centeno, or in the stipulated testimonies of
PO3 Chantengco and PO1 Fortea, did they indicate that the seized item had ever been marked. Notably, the members of
the buy-bust team did not also mention that they marked the seized plastic sachet in their Joint Affidavit of Arrest.
How the apprehending team could have omitted such a basic and vital procedure in the initial handling of the seized drugs
truly baffles and alarms us. We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen would use the markings as reference. If
at the first or the earliest reasonably available opportunity, the apprehending team did not mark the seized items, then
there was nothing to identify it later on as it passed from hand to hand. Due to the procedural lapse in the first link of the
chain of custody, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the seized shabu that the prosecution introduced into
evidence.
We are not unaware that the seized plastic sachet already bore the markings "BC 02-01-04" when it was examined by
Forensic Chemist Jabonillo. In the absence, however, of specifics on how, when and where this marking was done and who
witnessed the marking procedure, we cannot accept this marking as compliance with the required chain of custody
requirement. There was also no stipulation between the parties regarding the circumstances surrounding this marking.
We note in this regard that it is not enough that the seized drug be marked; the marking must likewise be made in the
presence of the apprehended violator. As earlier stated, the police did not at any time ever hint that they marked the seized
drug.
In Lito Lopez v. People of the Philippines
we acquitted the accused for failure of the police to mark the seized drugs. The Court had a similar ruling in People of the
Philippines v. Merlita Palomares y Costuna;
the Court acquitted the accused for the prosecution’s failure to clearly establish the identity of the person who marked the
seized drugs; the place where marking was made; and whether the marking had been made in the accused’s presence.
These recent cases show that the Court will not hesitate to free an accused if irregularities attended the first stage of the
chain of custody over the seized drugs.
b. The requirements of paragraph 1, Section 21 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, which states:
be given a copy thereof. [Emphasis ours]
This is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which reads:

Page 52 of 63
the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items; [Emphasis
ours]
In the present case, no evidence was produced showing that the members of the buy-bust team had extended reasonable
efforts to comply with these requirements in handling the evidence. The lapse is patent from the following exchanges
during trial:
FISCAL ROGELIO ANTERO:
Q: x x x After the body frisk and the recovery of the buy-bust money from the person of the accused, what happened next?
PO2 CENTENO:
A: We went to the station and turned over to the desk officer for proper disposition.
xxxx
Q: How about the pieces of evidence you recovered?
A: I also turned it over to the desk officer, sir.
Q: Who was the desk officer?
A: SPO2 Salinel, sir.
Q: What did the desk officer do with the evidence?
A: He designated the investigator. Then, the investigator made the proper request for Crime Lab.
Q: Who was the investigator?
A: PO3 Chantengco.
xxxx
Q: Why do you know that the duty desk officer turned over the pieces of evidence to Chantengco?
A: I was there, sir.
Q: What happened when this pieces of evidence was turned over to the investigator?
A: The investigator made the request for Crime Lab.
Q: After the request for laboratory examination of specimen was made. [W]hat happened next?
A: We immediately brought [sic] to the Crime Lab. for examination.
These exchanges further show that the apprehending team never conducted an inventory nor did they photograph the
confiscated item in the presence of the appellant or his counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice, or an elective official either at the place of seizure, or at the police station. The Joint Affidavit of the police did not
also mention any inventory conducted of any photograph taken. Corollarily, there was no certificate of inventory or
inventory receipt and photographs of the seized drugs attached to the records.
In People v. Gonzales,
the police failed to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized plastic sachet. In acquitting the accused based on
reasonable doubt, we explained that [t]he omission of the inventory and photographing exposed another weakness of the
evidence of guilt, considering that the inventory and photographing — to be made in the presence of the accused or his
representative, or within the presence of any representative from the media, Department of Justice or any elected official,
who must sign the inventory, or be given a copy of the inventory — were really significant stages of the procedures
outlined by the law and its IRR.

Page 53 of 63
We recognize that strict compliance with the legal prescriptions of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. Section
21(a), Article II of the IRR, in fact, offers some flexibility in complying with the express requirements under paragraph 1,
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, i.e., "non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]" This saving clause, however, applies only
where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses and thereafter cited justifiable grounds to explain them. In all
cases, the prosecution must have established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been
preserved.
These conditions were not met in the present case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification for the
failure of the apprehending team to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drug. We stress that the
justifiable ground for non-compliance must be adequately explained; the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or
that they even exist.
II. No Presumption of Regularity

in the Performance of Official Duties
The CA relied on the presumption that regular duties have been regularly performed in sustaining the appellant’s
conviction. This presumption of regularity, however, is disputable; any taint of irregularity taints the performance
undertaken and negates the presumption.
It cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In the present case, the lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from petitioner due to the
failure of the police to mark, inventory and photograph the seized plastic sachet effectively negated the presumption of
regularity. The procedural lapses by the police put in doubt the identity and evidentiary value of the seized plastic sachet.
Our ruling in People v. Cantalejo
on this point is particularly instructive:

As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit
because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. However, when the performance of their
duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.
While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot
prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is merely just that - a mere presumption disputable by contrary
proof and which when challenged by evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.
In fine, we hold that the totality of the presented evidence do not support a finding of guilt with the certainty that criminal
cases require. The procedural lapses committed by the apprehending team show glaring gaps in the chain of custody,
creating a reasonable doubt on whether the shabu seized from the appellant was the same shabu that were brought to the
crime laboratory for chemical analysis, and eventually offered in court as evidence. In the absence of concrete evidence on
the illegal drug bought and sold, the body of the crime - the corpus delicti - has not been adequately proven. In effect, the
prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of the crime charged.
The Court is one with all the agencies concerned in pursuing a serious and unrelenting campaign against illicit drugs. But
we remind our law enforcers to be ever mindful of the procedures required in the seizure, handling and safekeeping of
confiscated drugs. Observance of these procedures is necessary to dispel any doubt of the outcome of arrests and buy-bust
operations, and to avoid wasting the efforts and the resources in the apprehension and prosecution of violators of our drug
laws.
WHEREFORE, in light of all these premises, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the February 8, 2008 decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. H.C. No. 02726. Appellant Sonny Sabdula y Amanda is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he
is otherwise legally confined for another cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be sent the Director, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days
from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.

Page 54 of 63
G.R. No. 185717 June 8, 2011

vs.
GARRY DE LA CRUZ y DELA CRUZ, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated June 30, 2008 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02727,
which affirmed in toto the February 8, 2007 Decision2 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-117814 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 82 in Quezon City. The RTC found accused Garry de la Cruz y dela Cruz (Garry) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
In an Information3 filed on June 3, 2003, accused was indicted for the crime allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 29th of May, 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell,
dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense,
deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point zero two (0.02) gram of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Upon arraignment on July 28, 2003, accused pleaded "not guilty" to the above charge. 4 Trial5 on the merits ensued.
After conducting surveillance for a week, the Station Drug Enforcement Unit in La Loma, Quezon City planned a buy-bust
operation against a certain Garry who was in the Barangay Watch List. The operation was coordinated with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
On May 29, 2003, at around 9:00 a.m., the station’s Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Police Inspector Oliver Villanueva (P/Insp.
Villanueva), gave a briefing on the buy-bust operation. Police Officer 2 Edcel Ibasco (PO2 Ibasco) was designated as
poseur-buyer, while PO1 Roderick Valencia (PO1 Valencia), PO1 Alfredo Mabutol, and PO2 Ronald Pascual were assigned
as back-up operatives. Their informant attended the briefing.
Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to Biak-na-Bato corner Mauban Streets, Quezon City and arrived there at around
9:30 a.m. The informant introduced PO2 Ibasco to the accused, who was standing in front of a shanty, as wanting to
buy shabu. The accused asked for PhP 100, and when PO2 Ibasco paid the amount, the former handed over to him a white
crystalline substance in a plastic sachet. Upon PO2 Ibasco’s prearranged signal, the other members of the buy-bust team
approached them. The accused, sensing what was happening, ran towards the shanty but was caught by PO1 Valencia at
the alley. PO1 Valencia introduced himself as a police officer and frisked the accused, in the process recovering the buy-
bust money.
The buy-bust team then brought the accused to the station. The accused was turned over to the desk officer on duty, along
with the substance in the sachet bought from him and the recovered buy-bust money. After inquest, the Information was
filed on June 3, 2003. Accused was then committed to the Quezon City Jail. 6
Consequently, the substance inside the sachet believed to be shabu was sent to and examined by a Philippine National
Police forensic chemist, Engr. Leonard Jabonillo (Engr. Jabonillo). The laboratory result confirmed that the substance was
positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Only PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia testified for the prosecution during the trial. The testimony of Engr. Jabonillo was
dispensed with upon stipulation by the defense.
The accused denied selling shabu to PO2 Ibasco. In short, the accused used the defense of denial and alleged a frame-up
by the arresting officers.
The accused testified that he was arrested on May 29, 2003 at around 9:00 a.m. inside his house at Barangay Manresa,
Quezon City while he was alone drinking coffee. While two neighbors were talking in front of his house, a Tamaraw FX
arrived. Five armed men alighted from it, whereupon his neighbors ran away and were chased by them. The armed men

Page 55 of 63
then returned, saying, "Nakatakas, nakatakbo." (They had escaped and ran.) One of the armed men saw the accused and
entered his house. It was PO2 Ibasco, who frisked him and got PhP 60 from his pocket. PO1 Valencia also entered his
house and came out with a shoe box, then said, "Sige, isakay n’yo na." (Take him in the car.) He asked the armed men
what his violation was but was told to merely explain at the precinct.
In the police precinct, he was investigated and subsequently detained. They showed him a plastic sachet which they
allegedly recovered from him. Then a man approached him and demanded PhP 30,000 for his release, but he said he did
not have the money. Thereafter, he was presented for inquest.
A witness, Rodolfo Buencamino (Buencamino), narrated that in the morning of May 29, 2003, he called the police
precinct to have a certain "Taba," an alleged drug pusher in their area, arrested. PO2 Ibasco and other police officers
responded immediately. When the police officers arrived, Buencamino pointed to "Taba," who, however, was able to evade
arrest. Thereafter, he was surprised to see the accused inside the vehicle of the policemen. But he did not know why and
where the accused was arrested since he did not witness the actual arrest.
Another witness, Marbelita Collado Lepiten (Lepiten), testified that she was at the terrace of her house on 135 Manba St.,
Manresa, San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, when she noticed the accused talking to a certain "Taba," a resident of
the area. When a maroon Tamaraw FX stopped in front of the house of accused, "Taba" ran away and was pursued by two
men who alighted from the vehicle. The two men returned without "Taba," who evidently escaped, and entered the house
of the accused. She did not know what happened inside the house but she eventually saw the men push the accused
outside into their vehicle.
The Ruling of the RTC
On February 8, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense
charged. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused GARRY DELA CRUZ guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and hereby sentencing him to suffer the penalty of LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS.
SO ORDERED.
In convicting the accused, the RTC relied on and gave credence to the testimony of prosecution witnesses PO2 Ibasco and
PO1 Valencia. Citing People v. Jubail,7 which enumerated the elements required to be established by the prosecution for
the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the trial court found that the prosecution had established the elements of the crime.
The RTC pointed out that Buencamino may, indeed, have called the police to arrest a certain "Taba," an alleged pusher in
the area, but he was not present when the accused was arrested. The trial court likewise did not accord evidentiary weight
to the testimony of Lepiten, who testified that she saw the accused talking to "Taba" and that when the police officers
entered the house of the accused, she was unaware of what transpired inside. Thus, the RTC concluded that her testimony
did not provide clear and convincing justification to cast doubt on the candid and straightforward testimonies of the police
officers.
Applying the presumption of the performance of official function, the lack of showing any ill motive on the part of the
police officers to testify against the accused, and the principle that the bare denial of an accused is inherently weak, the
RTC convicted the accused.
Consequently, with his conviction, the accused started to serve his sentence 8 and was subsequently committed to the New
Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City.
Aggrieved, accused appealed9 his conviction before the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
On June 30, 2008, the appellate court rendered the appealed decision, wholly affirming the findings of the RTC and the
conviction of appellant. The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, herein appeal is hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision supra is hereby
AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
The CA upheld the findings of the trial court that the essential elements required for the conviction of an accused for
violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 were present in the instant case. The appellate court brushed aside the irregularities
raised by accused-appellant by putting premium credence on the testimonies of the arresting police officers, who
positively identified accused-appellant in open court. One with the trial court, the CA found no improper motive on the
part of the police officers who, it said, were regularly performing their official duties. Besides, relying on People v.

Page 56 of 63
Barlaan,10 the CA held that the irregularities raised that there was no coordination with the PDEA and that no inventory
was made and no photograph taken of the seized drug, if true, did not invalidate the legitimate buy-bust operation
conducted. Moreover, the CA found that the corpus delicti, i.e., the confiscated shabu and the PhP 100 bill, were presented
as evidence of the commission of the offense.
The CA also ruled that accused-appellant’s mere denial, as corroborated by Buencamino and Lepiten, deserved scant
consideration vis-à-vis the positive identification by the arresting officers who arrested him in flagrante delicto. Anent the
questioned chain of custody, the CA found it unbroken and duly proven by the prosecution.
The Issues
Hence, We have this appeal.
Only accused-appellant, however, filed his Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief), 11 while the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), representing the People of the Philippines, submitted neither a Manifestation nor a Motion. Consequently,
on July 27, 2009, the Court dispensed with the OSG’s submission of a supplemental brief. 12 Since no new issues are raised
nor supervening events transpired, We scrutinize the Brief for the Accused-Appellant13 and the Brief for the Plaintiff-
Appellee,14 filed in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02727, in resolving the instant appeal.
Thus, accused-appellant raises the same assignment of errors, in that:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S
DEFENSE OF DENIAL.15
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
Accused-appellant argues that, first, the prosecution has not proved his commission of the crime charged for the following
irregularities: (1) the arresting officers did not coordinate with the PDEA, as required under Sec. 86 of RA 9165; (2) no
physical inventory was conducted and photograph taken of the alleged seized drug in the presence of public officials, as
required by Sec. 21 of RA 9165; and (3) the chain of custody was not duly proved by the prosecution. And second, his
denial is worthy of credence upon corroboration by the credible witnesses presented by the defense.
After a careful and thorough review of the records, We are convinced that accused-appellant should be acquitted, for the
prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt his commission of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165.
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." 16 However, where there really was no buy-bust
operation conducted, it cannot be denied that the elements for illegal sale of prohibited drugs cannot be duly proved
despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the seeming straightforward testimony in
court by the arresting police officers. After all, the indictment for illegal sale of prohibited drugs will not have a leg to stand
on.
This is the situation in the instant case.
The courts a quo uniformly based their findings and affirmance of accused-appellant’s guilt on: (1) the straightforward
testimony of the arresting police officers; (2) their positive identification of accused-appellant; (3) no ill motive was shown
for their testimony against accused-appellant; (4) the self-serving defense of denial by accused-appellant; (5) the seeming
irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the arrest of accused-appellant not invalidating the operation;
and (6) the testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten not showing that the buy-bust operation was not conducted.
Although the trial court’s findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule does not
apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied in a case under
appeal,17 as here.
For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identity of the buyer
and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the
proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti.18

Page 57 of 63
In People v. Doria,19 the Court laid down the "objective test" in determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses
regarding the conduct of buy-bust operations. It is the duty of the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the
buy-bust operation—"from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise
or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of sale." 20 We
said that "[t]he manner by which the initial contact was made, x x x the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the
‘buy-bust money’, and the delivery of the illegal drug x x x must be the subject of strict scrutiny by the courts to insure that
law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense."21
No Surveillance Conducted
The testimony of PO2 Ibasco on direct examination did not mention an alleged surveillance conducted by PO2 Ibasco and
PO1 Valencia prior to the alleged buy-bust operation, the corresponding intelligence report, and the written communiqué
with the PDEA. The defense in cross-examination put to task both PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia concerning these matters,
as attested to in the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension22executed by the two police officers on May 30, 2003. PO2 Ibasco
testified that his unit, specifically PO1 Valencia and himself, conducted surveillance on accused-appellant for a week prior
to the buy-bust operation on May 29, 2003 which, according to him, turned out positive, i.e., accused-appellant was,
indeed, selling shabu.
PO2 Ibasco on cross-examination testified, thus:
ATTY. LOYOLA:
Being an operative, you are of course, trained in intelligence work?
PO2 IBASCO:
Yes, sir.
Q: You said you conducted surveillance but you cannot show any proof that there is an intelligence report, you have no
proof?
A: Yes, sir. There is, we were dispatched.
Q: Where is your proof now?
A: It’s in our office.
Q: Your dispatch order for the surveillance do you have any?
A: I don’t have it now sir but it’s in the office.
Q: You said that you conducted surveillance for one week, did I hear you right?
A: Yes, sir.
xxxx
Q: So, you are saying you did not actually see him selling drugs at that time during the surveillance?
A: We saw him, sir.
xxxx
Q: None. You did not even coordinate this operation with the PDEA?
A: We coordinated it, sir.
Q: What is your proof that you indeed coordinated?
A: It’s in the office, sir.
ATTY. LOYOLA:
May I make a reservation for continuance of the cross-examination considering that there are documents that the witness
has to present.
COURT:

Page 58 of 63
What documents?
ATTY. LOYOLA:
The proof your Honor that there was indeed a coordination and the intelligence report.
COURT:
Will you be able to produce those documents?
A: Yes, sir. "Titingnan ko po."
PROSECUTOR ANTERO:
Titingnan?
COURT:
You are not sure? You don’t have any copy of those documents?
A: You Honor, what we have in the office is the dispatch.23
PO1 Valencia, likewise, on cross-examination testified:
ATTY. LOYOLA:
Mr. Witness, tell me during the orientation, you will agree with me that there was no coordination made to the PDEA
regarding this intended buy bust operation?
PO1 VALENCIA:
We have coordinated at the PDEA.
Q: You say that but you have no proof to show us that there was coordination?
A: We have, sir.
Q: What is your proof?
A: We have files in our office for coordination.
Q: Are you sure about that?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, based on the information, you already planned to conduct a buy bust operation against the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: But you will agree with me that there was no surveillance against the accused?
A: We have conducted a surveillance one week before the operation and we conducted surveillance "Pinakawalan namin
ang informant."
Q: What do you mean "pinakawalan ang informant"?
A: So that we have a spy inside to verify whether Garry was really selling shabu.
xxxx
Q: In fact you don’t have any information report?
A: We have, sir. It’s in the office. It’s with Insp. Villanueva.
Q: And because you claim that you have submitted an information and report, of course, you should have come up with an
intelligence report.

Page 59 of 63
A: Yes, sir. It’s also in the office of Insp. Villanueva.
xxxx
Q: And the alleged recovered item, the plastic sachet which contained white crystalline substance was brought by whom to
the PNP Crime Laboratory?
A: I cannot remember who brought it sir because it was a long time ago.24
These documents--specifically the dispatch order, the intelligence report of the alleged surveillance, and the written
communiqué from the PDEA for the conduct of the surveillance and buy-bust operation--were not, however, presented in
court. Evidently, these documents are non-existent, tending to show that there really was no surveillance and,
consequently, no intelligence report about the surveillance or the averred written communiqué from PDEA attesting to
coordination with said agency. Worse, the prosecution never bothered to explain why it could not present these
documents. Thus, there is no basis to say that accused-appellant allegedly sold shabu a week before he was arrested.
Even putting this lapse aside, the other irregularities raised by accused-appellant in the backdrop of the uncontroverted
testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten tend to show that there was really no buy-bust operation conducted resulting in
the valid arrest of accused-appellant.
Generally, non-compliance with Secs. 21 and 86 of RA 9165 does not mean that no buy-bust operation against appellant
ever took place.25The prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory and photograph of the
evidence confiscated pursuant to Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165 will not discharge the accused from the crime. Non-
compliance with said section is not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from
him inadmissible.26
No Buy-Bust Operation
But where there are other pieces of evidence putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation, these irregularities
take on more significance which are, well nigh, fatal to the prosecution.
Putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation are the uncontroverted testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten,
which gave credence to accused-appellant’s denial and frame-up theory. The Court is not unaware that, in some instances,
law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information from or even to harass civilians.27 This
Court has been issuing cautionary warnings to trial courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an innocent
person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.28
The defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law
enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. 29 Nonetheless, such a defense may be given
credence when there is sufficient evidence or proof making it to be very plausible or true. We are of the view that accused-
appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up are credible given the circumstances of the case. Indeed, jurisprudence has
established that the defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution’s evidence is such that it does not
prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt,30as in the instant case. At the very least, there is reasonable doubt that there was a
buy-bust operation conducted and that accused-appellant sold the seized shabu. After all, a criminal conviction rests on
the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. 31
Notably, Buencamino voluntarily testified to the effect that he called the police asking them to apprehend a certain "Taba,"
a notorious drug pusher in their area. PO2 Ibasco and company responded to his call and Buencamino helped identify and
direct the policemen but "Taba" unfortunately escaped. Thus, Buencamino testified:
ATTY. BARTOLOME:
Mr. Witness, who asked you to testify today?
BUENCAMINO:
I volunteered myself to testify.
xxxx
Q: Can you tell us how, when and where the accused was arrested?
A: I was the one who called-up the precinct to arrest a certain Taba and not Garry. Taba was the target of the operation.
Q: When was that?
A: May 29, 2003.

Page 60 of 63
Q: Why did you call the police station?
A: Ibasco talked to me to arrest Taba.
Q: Why are they going to arrest Taba?
A: Because he is a pusher in the area.
Q: Why do you know Ibasco?
A: Because he was a previous resident of Barangay Manresa.
Q: You said you called police officer [sic] what was the topic. Mr. Witness?
A: That Taba is already there and he already showed up and they immediately responded to arrest Taba.
Q: So, Ibasco immediately responded to your call?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: When they arrived in your place what happened else, if any?
A: I pointed to Taba so they could arrest him.
Q: Where they able to arrest Taba?
A: No, sir. He was able to escape.
Q: Whey they were not able to arrest alias Taba what happened, next Mr. Witness? What happened to Garry Dela Cruz?
A: I was surprised because I saw Garry Dela Cruz already inside the vehicle and I don’t know why Garry was inside the
vehicle.32
Buencamino’s assertion of knowing PO2 Ibasco was likewise not rebutted. Moreover, the presentation of the police
logbook on calls received in the morning of May 29, 2003 would indeed show if Buencamino or someone else made a call
to the precinct about a certain "Taba," but then, again, the prosecution did not bother to rebut the testimony of
Buencamino. Verily, this time the presumption "that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse if
produced"33 applies. In fact, the prosecution did not even assail Buencamino’s credibility as a witness but merely made the
point in the cross-examination that he had no actual knowledge of the arrest of accused-appellant. Thus, Buencamino was
cross-examined:
PROSECUTOR ANTERO:
You were not with Garry at the time he was arrested?
BUENCAMINO:
No, sir.
Q: You don’t know where he was arrested at that time?
A: I don’t know where Garry was, sir.
PROSECUTOR ANTERO:
That will be all, your Honor.34
More telling is the testimony of Lepiten which, uncontroverted, shows that there was no buy-bust operation. Her
testimony corroborates the testimony of Buencamino that police enforcers indeed responded to Buencamino’s phone call
but were not able to apprehend "Taba." This destroys the buy-bust operation angle testified to by PO2 Ibasco and PO1
Valencia. Since the buy-bust operation allegedly happened not inside the house of accused-appellant but in an open area
in front of a shanty, such cannot be sustained in light of what Lepiten witnessed: The policemen chased but were not able
to arrest "Taba"; thereafter, the policemen went inside the house of accused-appellant, emerging later with him who was
led to the vehicle of the policemen. Thus, Lepiten testified:
ATTY. BARTOLOME:
Mrs. Witness, where were you on May 29, 2003, if you could still remember?

Page 61 of 63
COURT:
What time?
ATTY. BARTOLOME:
At around 9:00 in the morning.
LEPITEN:
I was at the terrace of the house we are renting while sipping coffee.
Q: Where is that house located?
A: No. 135 Mauban Street, Barangay Manresa, Quezon City.
COURT:
Where is this, Novaliches?
A: No, your Honor, near San Francisco Del Monte.
xxxx
ATTY. BARTOLOME:
While drinking coffee, what transpired next, Mrs. Witness or was there any unusual thing that happened?
A: Yes, sir. While I was sitting on the terrace in front of the house we are renting is the house of Garry. Garry was talking to
a certain Taba whom I know.
xxxx
Q: While you saw them talking to each other, what happened next?
A: Suddenly a maroon FX stopped.
Q: Where?
A: In front of the house of Garry.
Q: When this maroon FX stopped, what happened next, if any?
A: Taba ran, sir.
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: Two (2) men in blue pants and white shirt alighted from the maroon FX and ran after Taba.
Q: Were they able to arrest Taba, Ms. Witness?
A: No, sir. They were not able to catch him.
Q: When they failed to arrest Taba, what did these two (2) men do, if any?
A: They returned in front of the house and Garry and I saw them entered the house of Garry.
xxxx
Q: What did they do, if any?
A: I don’t know what they did inside because I could not see them, sir. Then I saw them went down and pushed Garry
towards the FX.
xxxx
Q: After that what else happened, if any?

Page 62 of 63
A: I just saw that they boarded Garry inside the FX.
xxxx
COURT:
Any cross?
PROSECUTOR ANTERO:
No cross, your Honor.35
Thus, taking into consideration the defense of denial by accused-appellant, in light of the foregoing testimonies of
Buencamino and Lepiten, the Court cannot conclude that there was a buy-bust operation conducted by the arresting police
officers as they attested to and testified on. The prosecution’s story is like a sieve full of holes.
Non-Compliance with the Rule on Chain of Custody
Moreover, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the requisite chain of custody of the seized specimen. "Chain of
custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.36 The CA found an unbroken chain of custody of the purportedly confiscated shabu specimen. However, the
records belie such conclusion.
The testimonies of PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia, as well as their Joint Affidavit of Apprehension, were bereft of any
assertion on how the seized shabu in a heat-sealed sachet was duly passed from PO2 Ibasco, the chosen poseur-buyer, who
allegedly received it from accused-appellant, to forensic chemist Engr. Jabonillo, who conducted the forensic examination.
While the testimony of Engr. Jabonillo was dispensed with upon stipulation by the defense, as duly embodied in the RCT
Order dated March 16, 2004, it is likewise bereft of any assertion substantially proving the custodial safeguards on the
identity and integrity of the shabu allegedly received from accused-appellant. The stipulation merely asserts:
x x x that he is a Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police; that his office received a request for laboratory
examination marked as Exhibit "A"; that together with said request is a brown envelope marked as Exhibit "B"; which
contained a plastic sachet marked as Exhibit "B-1"; that he conducted a requested laboratory examination and, in
connection therewith, he submitted a Chemistry Report marked as Exhibit "C". The findings thereon showing the
specimen positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride was marked as Exhibit "C-1", and the signature of the said
police officer was marked as Exhibit "C-2". He likewise issued a Certification marked as Exhibits "D" and "D-1", and
thereafter, turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian and retrieved the same for [sic] purposed proceeding
scheduled today.37
While both PO2 Ibasco and PO1 Valencia testified on the identity of the plastic sachet duly marked with the initials
"EIGC," there was no sufficient proof of compliance with the chain of custody. The records merely show that, after the
arrest of accused-appellant, the specimen was allegedly turned over to the desk officer on duty, whose identity was not
revealed. Then it was the station’s OIC, P/Insp. Villanueva, who requested the forensic examination of the specimen. In
gist, from the alleged receipt of the plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of shabu by PO2 Ibasco from the alleged buy-bust
operation, the chain of custody of the specimen has not been substantially shown. The Court cannot make an inference
that PO2 Ibasco passed the specimen to an unnamed desk officer on duty until it made its way to the laboratory
examination. There are no details on who kept custody of the specimen, who brought it to the Crime Laboratory, and who
received and kept custody of it until Engr. Jabonillo conducted the forensic examination. The stipulated facts merely made
an allusion that the specimen custodian of the Crime Laboratory had possession of the specimen and released it for the
proceedings before the trial court.
It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in
court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to
make a finding of guilt.38 This, the prosecution failed to do. The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to
establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody.39
As the Court aptly put in People v. Cantalejo:
x x x the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins.
x x x failure to observe the proper procedure also negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police
officers. As a general rule, the testimony of police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and
credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. However, when the performance of
their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.

Page 63 of 63
While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot
prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.40
In sum, considering the multifarious irregularities and non-compliance with the chain of custody, We cannot but acquit
accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt. The law demands that only proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt
can justify a verdict of guilt.41 In all criminal prosecutions, without regard to the nature of the defense which the accused
may raise, the burden of proof remains at all times upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.42 As the Court often reiterated, it would be better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty of
the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit. 43
In fine, We repeat what the Court fittingly held in People v. Ong, a case similarly involving a buy-bust operation, thus:
The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable
doubt. While appellant’s defense engenders suspicion that he probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient
for a conviction that the evidence establishes a strong suspicion or probability of guilt. It is the burden of the prosecution
to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required.
In the case at bar, the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, the evidence for the prosecution not being sufficient to sustain
and prove the guilt of appellants with moral certainty. By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise
but it is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such an investigation, to let
the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the
appellants’ innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution
and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense. Suffice it to say, a slightest doubt should be resolved in favor of the
accused.44
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. Accused-appellant Garry De La Cruz y Dela Cruz is
hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged on basis of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the CA Decision dated June 30,
2008 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02727 is SET ASIDE. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause the
immediate release of accused-appellant, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.

Drugcases Final Exam

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Drugcases Final Exam

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Page 1 of 63

G.R. No. 179940 April 23, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

The version of the prosecution is as follows:

LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II

Appellant makes a lone assignment of error:

LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II

LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II

LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II

G.R. No. 186418 October 16, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

The facts gathered from the records are as follows:

Criminal Case No. 23227-R

Criminal Case No. 23229-R

Criminal Case No. 23228-R

LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II

LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II

Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on 12 August 2008. 26

LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II

Q How many storeys is the house of the accused?

A About three (3), Sir.

Q Where is the balcony where the man was standing?

A At the third floor, Sir.

Q What happened next?

Q What happened next?

A After talking, the Informant signaled me to go near them, sir.

Q What happened next?

A The Informant signaled me to go near them, Sir.

Q What happened next?

A I was introduced to Jun as user and buyer of shabu, Sir.

Q Were you introduced by name?

Q What happened next?

A The Informant excused himself, Sir.

Q In what language or dialect?

LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II

Q What happened next?

A He knocked at the door and called out for "Bong." Sir.

Q What happened next?

Q How did you know that it was Bong?

A That is what I heard, Sir.

A The person told Jun "eto na yong box," Sir.

Q What happened next?

A He said "akina yong bayad," Sir.

Q After that what happened next?

Q What was your pre-arranged signal?

A By removing my sunglasses and placing it in my pocket, Sir.

Q After you have made the signal what happened next?

A My back-up team rushed to where I am (sic), Sir.

Q What is his full name?

A Jun Aquino Lazaro, Sir.

LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II

Q What happened next?

A After we controlled Jun we brought him to our office, Sir.

Q He was not searched at the area of operation?

A He was searched, Sir.

Q Who searched him?

Q What was the result of your search?

A I was able to find the marked money, Sir.

A I placed my initials, Sir.

Q Please point to your initial?

Q When did you place that?

A After the arrest of the accused, Sir.

LEGAL WRITING FINAL EXAMINATION DECEMBER 11, 2017 PART II