People of the Philippines Vs.

Steve Siaton y Bate

G.R. No. 208353. July 4, 2016
FACTS: Accused-appellant was charged and convicted by the
lower courts for selling shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.
It appears that Police Officer 1 Jojit Ching Ranile (POI Ranile),
accompanied by a confidential asset and other police operatives,
conducted surveillance in Looc, Mandaue City. One of the
objectives of the surveillance was to ascertain whether or not
accused-appellant Steve Siaton was selling shabu. To validate the
information, the confidential asset conducted a test buy. The
asset bought shabu from accused-appellant while in the presence
of PO 1 Ranile. After the confirmation of the item to be shabu, the
police operatives planned to conduct a buy-bust operation. When
PO 1 Ranile saw accused-appellant Steve Siaton, he approached
him and asked if he could buy a sachet of shabu. Steve Siaton
readily replied "How much?" PO 1 Ranile showed him the marked
money in the amount of Pl00.00 and said "One Peso," which
means One-Hundred Pesos in drug parlance. Without any
hesitation, accused-appellant answered yes and picked out a
small pack of suspected shabu and delivered the same to PO 1
Ranile. In tum, the officer handed over the marked Pl00.00 bill.
After which, he gave the pre-arranged signal by holding his nose.
Whereupon, PO 1 Cuyos, who was on stand by, immediately
approached the accused-appellant and held his left arm and said
"Bay, don't resist because this is police.
During the arrest, PO 1 Ranile informed accused-appellant of his
constitutional rights. When they reached the police station, he
prepared a request for laboratory examination of the pack of
shabu, which was marked "SBS," which stood for Steve Bate
Siaton. PO 1 Ranile delivered the confiscated pack to the crime
laboratory, where it was eventually found to be positive for shabu.
Hence, a crime for illegal sale was charged against the accused.
The RTC and CA finds the accused guilty as charged.

ISSUE: is the accused guilty as charged?

HELD:
NO. For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the following elements
must be satisfied: ( 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 therefor. In the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money
consummate the illegal transaction. What matters is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as
evidence. However, we found several glaring gaps in the chain of
custody; thus, we hold that the prosecution failed to establish an
important element of the offense, which is the identity of the
object. It is clear that no physical inventory nor photographs were
conducted by the apprehending team. And lastly, no third party
representatives were present during said inventory.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and ACQUITS the
accused-appellant.

People of the Philippines Vs. Rusgie Garrucho y Serrano

G.R. No. 220449. July 4, 2016
FACTS:

The members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), Si lay City,

Negros Occidental, received reports that appellant was engaged
in illegal sale or drugs within the vicinity of Sitio Matagoy,
Barangay Rizal of the same city. P03 Rebadomia and P02 Libo-on,
meinbers of the Intelligence Division of the Silay City PNP, were
on duty when they were advised that they will conduct a buy-bust
operation against appellant. During the briefing, a Five Hundred
Peso (P500.00) bill was marked, recorded in the police blotter and
given to the informant who, in turn, was designated as poseurbuyer and was told to raise his right hand over his head to signify
a completed purchase.
The buy-bust team went to the target area in Sitio Matagoy.
Wearing civilian clothes, the police officers positioned themselves
at a corner, about five (5) meters from where the poseur-buyer
stood. A few minutes later, a female, later identified as appellant,
approached the poseur-buyer. Since the target area was welllighted, the police officers saw the poseur-buyer hand the marked
money to appellant who, in turn, gave "something" to the poseurbuyer. When the poseur buyer made a signal by raising his right
hand, the police officers rushed towards appellant, and arrested
her while introducing themselves as police officers and reading
her constitutional rights. The poseur-buyer then handed to the
police the suspected shabu that appellant sold him. Since there
were several persons in the area and appellant was shouting and
struggling to free herself, the police decided to bring her and the
item bought from her to the police station.
With the assistance of P02 Dorado of the Women's and Children's
Desk of the police station, appellant was frisked and found in
possession of the P500.00 marked money, an aluminum foil,
Twenty-Two Pesos (P22.00) and another sachet of suspected
shabu. In the presence of appellant, Sangguniang Panglunsod
Member Ireneo Celis of Silay City, Kagawad Raymund Amit, P03
Rebadomia, P02 Libo and P02 Dorado, the items were
photographed and inventoried. Thereafter, Officer-in-Charge
Rosauro Francisco prepared the Request of Laboratory

Examination, the Request for Drug Test and the Extract Police
Report. P02 Libo-on turned over the seized items to the provincial
crime laboratory for examination. The two plastic sachets were
received by P02 Ariel Magbanua, as shown in the Chain of
Custody Form. The contents of the plastic sachets yielded positive
for shabu per Chemistry Report No. D-094-2011. Also, the urine
sample taken from appellant tested positive for shabu.
Hence, charges for violations or Secs. 5 and 11 were filed against
the herein accused. The RTC and CA finds the accused guilty as
charged.
ISSUE: Is the accused guilty as charged?
HELD:
NO. For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the following elements
must be satisfied: ( 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 therefor. In the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money
consummate the illegal transaction. What matters is the proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as
evidence.
In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the indispensable
element of corpus delicti of the drug cases against appellant
because it did not proffer, identify and submit in court the two (2)
shabu sachets allegedly confiscated from her.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED and ACQUITS the
accused-appellant.