Case No.

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 194446 April 21, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
HERMENIGILDO DELEN y ESCO BILLA, Accused-Appellant.

Facts:

On January 29, 2008 the accused-appellant was charged for qualified rape. The
alleged crime of qualified rape was committed by the accused against AAA.

That on or about January 17, 2005 at around 6:00 o’clock (sic) in the
morning at [XXX] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, motivated by lust and lewd designs, through force
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge on one [AAA], a 12-year old minor, against the latter’s
will.
That the aggravating circumstances of minority and relationship, the
victim being then a 12-year old minor and daughter of the accused, are
attendant in the commission of the offense. 5

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused should be convicted of qualified rape?

Ruling:

Yes, Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape is
qualified when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim. The minority of a rape victim and her
relationship, being the father of the victim, the accused-appellant qualified
the charge of rape.
Case No. 2

Facts:

Accused-appellant and his wife, KKK, were married on October 18, 1975.
5

They Ii ved together since then and raised their four (4) children as they 6

put up several businesses over the years.

But on July 16,1999, two Informations for rape were filed before the RTC
wherein it was alleged that the accused raped his wife on two separate
occasions, the accused by means of force upon person did then and there
wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the private
complainant, her wife, against the latter's will.contrary to and in Violation of
R.A. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused can be convicted of rape?

Held:

Yes, under section 1 of R.A 8353, it defines the term “man” in defining rape. R.A. No. 8353
penalizes the crime without regard to the rapist's legal relationship with his
victim. Although the accused was the husband of the victim, the accused
can still be convicted of the crime of rape as long as all the elements that
constitute rape are present.

the definition of rape in Section 1 of R.A. No. 8353 pertains to: (a) rape, as
traditionally known; (b) sexual assault; and (c) marital rape or that where
the victim is the perpetrator's own spouse. The single definition for all three
forms of the crime shows that the law does not distinguish between rape
committed in wedlock and those committed without a marriage. Hence, the
law affords protection to women raped by their husband and those raped
by any other man alike.
Case No.4

FACTS:
On May 5, 2004, the accused Pareja was charged for the crime of rape by sexual
assault. The alleged crime of qualified rape was committed by the accused against
AAA.

Bernabe Pareja y Cruz, being the common law spouse of the minor victim’s mother,
through force, threats and intimidation, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully
and feloniously commit an act of sexual assault upon the person of [AAA 3 ], a minor
13 years of age, by then and there mashing her breast and inserting his finger
inside her vagina against her will.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused be convicted of the crime of rape by sexual assault

HELD:

Yes, Under section 2 of Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti–Rape Law of 1997,
Rape is committed by
any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or
anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person.

AAA positively and consistently stated that Pareja, in December 2003,

inserted his penis into her anus. While she may not have been certain about the
details of the February 2004 incident, she was positive that Pareja had anal sex
with her in December 2003, thus, clearly establishing the occurrence of rape by
sexual assault. In other words, her testimony on this account was, as the Court of
Appeals found, clear, positive, and probable.
Case No. 5

FACTS:

On March 20, 2011, the accused-appellant was charged for qualified rape. The alleged
crime of qualified rape was committed by the accused against AAA.

Roel Vegara y Clavero, being the common law spouse of the minor victim’s mother, ,
with force and intimidation, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
had carnal knowledge with a minor, 9 years of age, [AAA], without her consent and
against her will.

The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge upon arraignment.

ISSue:

Whether or not the accused be convicted of statutory rape

Held:

Yes, Rape under paragraph 3 of article 266 of the Revised Penal Code is
termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing
rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a
woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and physical
evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only subject of
inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.
The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her
own on account of her tender years; the child’s consent is immaterial
because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil.

In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable
doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA in the afternoon
of September 12, 2004, when AAA was just nine years old.
Case No. 6

Facts:

On April 22, 2005, the accused Mervin Gahi, was charged for the crime of rape
defined under Article 266–A of the Revised Penal Code.

the above–named accused, with deliberate intent and with lewd designs and by use
of force and intimidation, armed with a knife, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously had carnal knowledge with (sic) [AAA3 ] against her will and a
16[–]year old girl, to her damage and prejudice. 4

When he was arraigned on November 4, 2002, appellant pleaded “NOT GUILTY” to

the charges leveled against him.

Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape

Held:

Yes, Article 266–A of the Revised Penal Code defines when and how the felony of
rape is committed, to wit: chanRoblesvirt ualLawlibrary

Rape is committed –

1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

(a) Through force, threat or intimidation;

(b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;

(c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;

(d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented,
even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

According to the prosecution, appellant used force or intimidation in order to

successfully have unlawful carnal knowledge of AAA. To be exact, appellant is
alleged to have utilized, on two occasions, a knife and the threat of bodily harm to
coerce AAA into submitting to his evil sexual desires.
Case No. 7

Facts:

the petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto while in the act of delivering
1.15 grams and in actual possession of another 10.78 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) as a result of an entrapment
operation conducted by the police on the basis of information received from
Benito Marcelo regarding petitioner's illegal drug trade. The petitioner was
arrested upon the subsequent seizure of a bag of shabu inserted inside the
cover of her checkbook that was justified and legal in light of the prevailing
rule that an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any
property found upon his person in order to find and seize things connected
with the crime.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused be convicted for illegal possession of dangerous

drugs

HELD:

Yes, Under section 15 Article III of Republic Act No. 6425, also known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659.in
order To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu,
the following essential elements must be duly established: (1) identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor. Succinctly, the delivery of the illicit
38

drug to the poseur-buyer, as well as the receipt of the marked money by

the seller, successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction. Hence,
what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled
with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 39

In the case at bench, the prosecution was able to establish the above-
enumerated elements beyond moral certainty.
Case No.8 :

FACTS:

The accused-appellant, Lumaho was charged with one count of the crime
of qualified rape under Art. 266-A and B of the Revised Penal Code as
amended in relation to Republic Act No. 7610.

in the morning of December, 2007, Asipulo, Ifugao, , the accused DID

then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by force and intimidation
have sexual intercourse with one [AAA], a minor, seven (7) years of age, at
2

the time of the commission of the offense and a daughter of the accused,
against her will and consent. 3

The accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant be convicted of qualified rape

HELD:

Yes, As conclusively proven by the prosecution, accused Lumaho had

carnal knowledge of his 7-year-old child AAA through force and intimidation
and the crime of rape was qualified because under Article 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code, the crime of rape is qualified when the victim is under
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. In this
case, the prosecution established all the elements to constitute as qualified
rape.
Case No.9 :

FACTS:
On October 25 2008,the accused-appellant, Edward Adriano y Sales, without
being authorized by law, sell, deliver, and give away to a poseur buyer, zero point
twelve (0.12) gram of a white crystalline substance, commonly known as "shabu"
which is a dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of Two Hundred Pesos
(Php200.00) and was charged for for the crime of illegal sale of shabu punishable
under Section 5, Article II of the Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise
known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (CDDA) of 2002.

When arraigned, Adriano pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

ISSUE:

Wherther or not the accused-appellant must be convicted of illegal sale of

dangerous dugs

HELD:

Yes, In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following two (2)
elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took
place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as
evidence.11

In the case at bar, the prosecution duly established the two (2) elements: (1) to
account that the transaction or sale indeed took place, PO1 Morales narrated the
transaction in a clear and direct manner; and (2) the seized illegal drugs and
marked money were presented before the trial court as proof of the identity of the
object of the crime and of the corpus delicti.12
Case No.10 : people v andaya

FACTS:

On December 16, 2002 at Brgy. San Jose Sico, Batangas City, the accused-
appellant, PABLITO ANDAYA Y REANO, was alleged not being authorized by law, did
then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell, dispense or deliver, more
or less 0.09 gram(s) of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug
and was charged for for the crime of illegal sale of shabu punishable under Section
5, Article II of the Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (CDDA) of 2002.

Upon arraignment,3 Andaya pleaded not guilty to the charge

ISSUE:

WHETHER OR NOT the Prosecution's non-presentation of the confidential

informant was adverse to the Prosecution, indicating that his guilt was not proved
beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

NO, The non-presentation of the confidential informant as a witness does not

ordinarily weaken the State's case against the accused. However, if the arresting
lawmen arrested the accused based on the pre-arranged signal from the confidential
informant who acted as the poseur buyer, his non-presentation must be credibly
explained and the transaction established by other ways in order to satisfy the quantum
of proof beyond reasonable doubt because the arresting lawmen did not themselves
participate in the buy-bust transaction with the accused.
Case No.11 :

FACTS:

On April 29, 2006 at 2:30 o'clock in the morning, more or less, at Capitol
Avenue, near Gaisano Mall, Butuan City, Philippines, and the accused-appellant
accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another,
with intent to kill, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, attack and stab one MAXIMILLIAN
CASONA Y LACROIX, with the use of an ice pick, hitting the latter at his left breast
and left portion of his stomach, which directly caused his death.

Accused-appellants pleaded not guilty during their arraignment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant should be convicted for murder

HELD:

No, For the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation to be

appreciated, the following must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the time
when the accused determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating
that the accused clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time
between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the
circumstances of his act The prosecution likewise failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation which would qualify
the killing of Maximillian to murder.

the events leading to the stabbing of Maximillian by accused-appellant Arnel

happened swiftly and unexpectedly, with accused-appellant Arnel instantaneously
and spontaneously stabbing Maximillian with a barbecue stick he found in the area.
Accused-appellant Arnel clearly had no opportunity for cool thought and reflection
prior to stabbing Maximillian.
Case No.12: people v balino

FACTS:

On August 2001, in the afternoon, at Purok 1A, barangay Poblacion,

municipality of Dangcagan, province of Bukidnon, Philippines, the accused,
Porferio Balino , with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and criminally with the use of force and intimidation have sexual
intercourse with [AAA], an 8 year old child, against her will. The accused
was charged with the crime of statutory rape.

Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to said charge

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of statutory rape

HELD:

Yes, sexual intercourse with a girl below twelve years of age is

statutory rape. Thus, force, intimidation, and physical evidence of injury are
not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the
woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that
18

the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her
tender years; the child’s consent is immaterial because of her presumed
incapacity to discern good from evil. In the case at bench, AAA, while
19

recounting her unfortunate ordeal, positively identified the accused as the

perpetrator; she never wavered in this identification.
Case No.13: people v ortega

FACTS:

On February 12, 2005, the accused-appellant , not being authorized

by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any
dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
SELL AND DELIVER to PO2 JAAFAR H. JAMBIRAN, a member of the
PNP, who acted as buyer, two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
each containing white crystalline substance having a total weight of 0.0206
gram, which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result
to the tests for the presence of worth of METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
The appellant-accused was charged with the crime of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs.

On 14 April 2005, appellant, assisted by his counsel, pleaded not

guilty to the crime charged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant should be convicted of the crime of

illegal sale of dangerous drugs.sfdrwr5666mmhnnny r

HELD:

Yes, In the prosecution of a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it

is necessary that the prosecution is able to establish the following essential
elements: (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 its payment

In the case at bar, The prosecution’s evidence positively identified the

buyer as PO2 Jambiran and the seller as appellant. Likewise, the
prosecution presented in evidence the two sachets of shabuas the object of
the sale and the P200.00 as consideration thereof. Finally, the delivery of
the shabusold and its payment were clearly testified to by prosecution
witnesses.
Case No.14: people v Amaro

FACTS:

On March 26, 1998, the accused-appellant ,Rosendo Amaro, by

means of deceit at the beginning and of force and intimidation later and
with lewd designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
abduct one [AAA], a seven (7) year old girl, by forcing her and took her to
3

his house and without any justifiable reason, accused detained and
deprived her of her liberty for a period of twenty eight (28) [sic] days; that
while she is being detained accused ROSENDO AMARO had carnal
knowledge of said AAA all committed against her will. The accused-
appellant was charged with the crime of forcible abduction with rape.

The accused- Appellant pleaded not guilty for the crime charged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant should be convicted of the

complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.

HELD:

Yes, The elements of the crime of forcible abduction, as defined in

Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, are: (1) that the person abducted is
any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation; (2) that she is
taken against her will; and (3) that the abduction is with lewd designs. On
the other hand, rape under Article 266-A is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman by: (1) force or intimidation, or(2) when the woman
is deprived of reason or is unconscious, or (3) when she is under
twelveyears of age.

In the case at bar, At her tender age, AAA could have easily been
deceived by appellant. The employment of deception suffices to constitute
the forcible taking, especially since the victim is an unsuspecting young girl.
It is the taking advantage of their innocence that makes them easy culprits
of deceiving minds. The presence of lewd designs in forcible abduction is
11

established by the actual rape of the victim.

Case No.15: people v Bunagan

FACTS:

During the period from 1998 to August 2001, the accused-appellant,

Stanley Bunagan y Juan being then the uncle of "AAA", minor, 16 years of
2

age, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant
against her will and consent.

The accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant should be convicted of the crime

of rape.

HELD:

Yes, the accused should be convicted of rape.Under article 266-A of the revised
penal code Rape may be committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a
woman through threat or intimidation. In the case at bar, according to
18

"AAA," every time appellant will have sexual intercourse with her, he would
issue threats that he would kill her, her mother and grandmother.
Case No.16: people v Zapata

FACTS:

On May11, 2002, , the accused-appellant, George Zapata y

Viana while armed with a .45 caliber pistol, being the husband of victim
QUEENY ZAPATA Y ERESPE, with intent to kill, treachery and evident
premeditation, during nighttime, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and [shoot] said victim QUEENY ZAPATA Y
ERESPE on [her left chest] thereby causing mortal wounds which caused
her death soon thereafter. The accused-appellant was charged with the
crime of parricide.

The accused-a ppellant entered a plea of not guilty when

arraigned on June 25, 2002.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of parricide

HELD:

Yes, In the crime of parricide, only the following elements need

to be satisfactorily established: "(1) the death of the deceased; (2) that he
or she was killed by the accused; and (3) that the deceased was a
legitimate ascendant or descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the
accused." All these elements have been proven beyond doubt.
17
Case No.17: people v Reyes

FACTS:

Sometime in the month of May, 2002, , the accused-appellant,

CHARLES REYES y MARASIGAN, motivated by lust and lewd design,
and by means of force and intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
did lie, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge [of] [AAA], an eleven
(11) year-old[-] daughter of his common-law wife, against her will and
without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.The
accused-appellant was charged with the crime of qualified rape.

When arraigned, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the

crime charged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of qualified rape

HELD:

Yes, , Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of
rape is qualified when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim. The minority of a rape victim and her
relationship, being the common law spouse of the mother of the victim, the
accused-appellant qualified the charge of rape.
Case No.18: people v Traigo

FACTS:

In its July 16, 2009 decision, the RTC convicted the accused-
appellant, Fred Traigo of the crime qualified rape for the sexual abuse
committed against AAA September 2004,. It found credible AAA’s testimony
that the appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and her testimony was
corroborated by the Initial Medico-Legal Report showing that she suffered
deep-healed hymenal lacerations. The CA also ruled that the exact date of
the rape is immaterial, and that AAA’s delay in reporting the incident of rape
was understandable since the appellant threatened to kill her mother, BBB,
if she would reveal the incident to anyone. The accused-appellant was
charged with the crime of qualified rape
The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of qualified rape

HELD:
Yes, Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the
death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is below 18 years of age
and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law
spouse of the parent of the victim.
In the case at bar, The evidence showed that the appellant was 12
years old when she was raped on March 2006, as evidenced by her
Certificate of Live Birth showing that she was born onNovember, 18, 1993.
8

The evidence also established that the appellant was the common-law
spouse of BBB. The minority of a rape victim and her relationship, being
1âwphi1m,mmmm`mnnsn

the common law spouse of the mother of the victim, the accused-appellant
qualified the charge of rape.
Case No.19: people v Watamama

FACTS:
On 26 October 1998, Francisco Arobo, Jr. (Arobo), Calim, and five
other farmers were at the farm of Ali Samad (Samad) located in Sitio
Matingao, Malapag, Carmen, Cotabato. They were ploughing the unplanted
area, while Samad was tending his corn plants. Arobo was five meters
ahead of Calim when the former heard gunfire coming from behind. Arobo
immediately looked to the rear and saw Midtimbang and appellant firing
garand rifles at Calim, who was then slumped near his plow. Midtimbang
and appellant were positioned ten (10) meters apart and five meters
obliquely behind Calim. Because of the successive gunshots, Arobo and
the rest of their group scampered to take cover in the shrubbery, while
Samad ran towards the nipa hut at the other side of the farm where his
children were staying.5 Appellant and Midtimbang also fired at Samad, but
he was not hit. Thereafter, the two fled.

The postmortem examination by the local municipal health officer

showed that Calim sustained multiple gunshot wounds in the head, chest,
right and left thighs, and right elbow. 7c The accused were charged with the
crime of murder.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused were guilty of murder

HELD:

No,the accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of homicide,

rather than murder, as the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish
treachery in the killing of Calim. For treachery to be considered, it must be
present and seen by the witness right at the inception of the attack. Where no
particulars are known as to how the killing began, the perpetration of an attack with
treachery cannot be presumed.
Case No.20: people v Tamayo

FACTS:
Norman Pleno , Wilson Quinto (), Alvin Hernaez (), and Leonard
Miranda () testified that in the early morning of April 8, 2004, while Joey M.
Obamen (), Wilson, Alvin, and Lorenzo Gloria () were having drink and
merriment beside the Iglesia Ni Cristo () chapel on Lacson Street in Tondo,
Manila, someone hurled empty bottles of gin at them.
3 4

Retaliating, Joey and his group threw stones and empty gin bottles at
accused Erwin and his companions. Enraged, the latter group gave chase
6

to Joey and the others with him. Unfortunately, Joey tripped on an iron
chain that guarded the INC’s parking area and fell to the ground. He was in
7

this position when Erwin and his companions attacked and mauled him.
Some, including Erwin, stabbed Joey with their knives. The assailants
scampered away afterwards. 8

Joey was rushed to the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital but died
shortly on arrival. A subsequent autopsy of his body showed that he died of
9

traumatic injuries on the head and multiple stab wounds on the abdomen

The accused were charged with murder.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accuses were guilty of murder

HELD:

Yes, the abuse of superior strength qualified the killing of Joey to murder.
In the case at bar, Since about 15 men, including accused Erwin, pounced
on their one helpless victim, relentlessly bludgeoned him on the head, and
stabbed him on the stomach until he was dead, there is no question that
the accused took advantage of their superior strength
Case No.3: people v Junaide

FACTS:

Accused Junaide took a sachet from his pocket and handed it to SPO1
Roca who in turn gave him a marked P100.00 bill. Junaide tried to flee but
the police stopped him. SPO1 Amado Mirasol, Jr. searched and found four
sachets of suspected shabu and the marked money on Junaide.

Subsequently, the police brought accused Junaide to the police

station where SPO1 Mirasol marked the four sachets seized from him and
turned these over to the case investigator, SPO1 Federico Lindo, Jr. The
latter then turned over the seized items to the police crime laboratory. The
sachet Junaide sold was found to contain 0.0101 gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

The accused was charged with illegal sale of shabu in violation of

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of illegal sale of dangerous

drugs

HELD:

No, the accused is not guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs

because In a prosecution for the sale of the prohibited drugs the State
bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State
would not have proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

And, to prove the corpus delicti, it is indispensable for the prosecution to

show that the dangerous drugs subject of the sale and examined in the
police laboratory are the same drugs presented in court as evidence.3 The
first stage in the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or
related items.j

Marking is the affixing of the initials or other identifying signs on the seized
items by the arresting officer or the poseur–buyer. This must be done in
the presence of the accused shortly after arrest In the case at bar,
compliance with the requirement of marking is not clear. Thus Guilt in that
charge has not, therefore, been proved beyond reasonable doubt.