Conviction 2014

CONVICTION
2014: 13 cases
1. PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES vs. GLENN SALVADOR and DORY ANN

PARCON
G.R. No. 190621 February 10, 2014
Ground: Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165
These are consolidated cases for illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs
which were apprehended through a buy bust operation.
DEFENSES:
1. Denial and frame-up

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."28
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."29 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. 30 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 police officers. Moreover, there
was no proof that the arresting officers improperly performed their duty in arresting
appellant and Parcon.
2. Non-compliance with Section 21,

Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
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,
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory 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.
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. Hence, conviction is sustained.
2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.MARCO P. ALEJANDRO
G.R. No. 205227 April 7, 2014
Ground: violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9 l 65
The three accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping
and aiding one another, not being authorized by law did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade deliver and give away to another,
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug weighing 98.51 grams contained in
one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, in violation of the above-cited law. When
arraigned, all three accused pleaded not guilty.
Defense: Non presentation of the investigator, NON COMPLIANCE OF CHAIN OF

CUSTODY.
Time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that substantial compliance

with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the
seized drug items inadmissible. In the instant case, although the police officers did not
strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, their
noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from appellant
as the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the
circumstances of the case.
The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the
receiving clerk of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory 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. Further, there is
nothing in R.A. No. 9165 or in its implementing rules, which requires each and every
one who came into contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the
chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken
and 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."
3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.NOEL PRAJES and ALIPA MALA, G.R. No.
206770 April 2, 2014
Ground: Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Cebu City received reports that the
accused-appellants were engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. Following surveillance
operations conducted during the last week of August 2002, a buy-bust operation was
organized by the NBI. The accused-appellants question the subject drugs’ identity and
the NBI’s observance of the rule on the chain of custody. They argue that it was unclear
as to who actually marked the subject packs of shabu, and that there were no
photographs and physical inventory of the seized items, even when the same are
required under the law.
Defense: Marking was make only afer the buy bust operation, Non Compliance of Chain
of Cusody
The fact that the marking was performed by SA Saavedra only upon the buy-bust
team’s arrival at the NBI office did not adversely affect the prosecution’s case against
the accused-appellants. Given the situation at the house where the accused-appellants
were caught in flagrante delicto and then arrested by the buy-bust team, the failure of
SA Saavedra to mark the seized drugs at the said site was justified. In his testimony
before the trial court, SA Minguez described that after the accused-appellants’ arrest,
their neighbors interfered and rallied for the accused-appellants, even compelling
members of the buy-bust team inside the house to seek the immediate aid of their peers
so that they could leave the premises.26
Even the failure of the prosecution to present a physical inventory and photograph of
the seized drugs did not render inadmissible the packs of shabu that were seized from
the accused-appellants, especially as we consider that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the drugs did not appear to have been compromised. Wherein we affirmed the
conviction of the accused notwithstanding some deviations from the required procedure
on physical inventory and photographs of the seized items.1âwphi1
4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GIL SALVIDAR , G.R. No.

207664 June 25, 2014
Ground: Violation of Section 11, Art. II, RA 9165
Durig pretrial the prosecution and the defense entered into stipulations and admissions
of facts anent:
(a) SPO1 Moran’s (1) having caused the buy-bust money to be photographed;
(2) receipt, while at the police station, of the person of the accused-appellant and
the items allegedly seized from him; (3) preparation of the evidence
acknowledgment receipt, affidavit of arrest of the police officers, and referral slip
to the inquest prosecutor; (4) preparation of a letter request for laboratory
examination of the seized items; and (5) receipt of the result of the laboratory
examination, which yielded positive for marijuana;12 and
(b) PCI Arturo’s (1) receipt of a letter request for laboratory examination of ten
(10) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white pieces of paper and
dried marijuana fruiting/flowering tops; (2) conduct of a laboratory examination
Science Report No. D-382-07 stating therein the result of the laboratory
examination.13
The testimonies of SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo were thus dispensed with.
Defense: Breach of Chain of Custody
The accused-appellant lamented that the evidence seized were not photographed and
inventoried in the presence of a member of the media, a representative from the DOJ,
and an elective government official. While this factual allegation is admitted, the Court
stresses that what Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 requires is "substantial" and
not necessarily "perfect adherence," as long as it can be proven that the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved as the same would be utilized in
the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The accused-appellant attempted to establish that there was a breach in the chain of
custody over the evidence seized from him by pointing out that SPO1 Moran twice
delivered the items to the crime laboratory – at first to a certain PO1 Bolora and later, to
PCI Arturo.42 The Court notes that despite the foregoing allegation, the defense agreed
with the prosecution to dispense with the testimonies of SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo.
The parties entered into stipulations and admissions of facts as regards the participation
of the aforementioned two. This is no less than an admission on the part of the defense
that there was nothing irregular in SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo’s performance of their
duties relative to preserving the integrity of the evidence which fell in their custody. Had
the accused-appellant sincerely believed that there was indeed a breach in the chain of
custody over the seized items, he would have insisted on putting SPO1 Moran and PCI
Arturo on the witness stand for cross-examination.1âwphi1
5. G.R. No. 203984 June 18, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.MEDARIO CALANTIAO y

DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant.
Ground: violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
Accused appellant was involved in a traffic dispute which he was one the passengers of
said taxi cab, alighted and fired their guns. The police officers while approaching said
vehicle, two armed men alighted therefrom, fired their guns towards them (police
officers) and ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but they were
subdued. PO1 Mariano recovered from Calantiao a black bag containing two (2) bricks
of dried marijuana fruiting tops and a magazine of super 38 stainless with ammos, while
PO3 Ramirez recovered from Calantiao’s companion [a] .38 revolver.
Defense:Illegal search, inadmissible as evidence
Calantiao’s argument that the marijuana cannot be used as evidence against him
because its discovery was in violation of the Plain View Doctrine, is misplaced.
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the exception to the inadmissibility of evidence
obtained in a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspect’s person
and premises under his immediate control. This is so because "[o]bjects in the ‘plain
view’ of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented as evidence."16 "The doctrine is usually applied where a
police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object x x x. [It] serves to supplement the
prior justification – whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search
incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected
with a search directed against the accused – and permits the warrantless seizure."17
The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no applicability in Calantiao’s situation because the
police officers purposely searched him upon his arrest. The police officers did not
inadvertently come across the black bag, which was in Calantiao’s possession; they
deliberately opened it, as part of the search incident to Calantiao’s lawful arrest.
6. G.R. No. 200598 June 18, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DENNIS E.

TANCINCO, Accused-Appellant.
Violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Tancico was apprehended due to an information given by a member of a Barangay

Intelligence Network (BIN) of an on-going pot session by an unidentified alleged armed
man and his companions. With the preliminary information that Tancinco was carrying
a firearm, the policemen cautiously approached Tancinco who attempted to dispose of
the firearm from his person and conceal its possession thereof by placing it at the side
of the bingo machine. Before Tancinco actually relieved himself of the firearm he was
apprehended. Incident to the warrantless arrest, a body search was conducted on him
and three (3) sachets of white substance suspected to be shabu were likewise
confiscated by the police. At which point of Tancinco’s arrest and the body search
conducted on him, the police apprised him of his constitutional rights.
Defense: FRAME UP, Police operatives did not perform their duties regularly.
The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and the
corresponding testimony of the arresting officers on the buy-bust transaction, can only
be overcome through clear and convincing evidence showing either of two things: (1)
that they were not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any
improper motive. In the face of the straightforward and direct testimony of the police
officers, and absent any improper motive on their part to frame up Tancinco, stacked
against the bare and thin self-serving testimony of Tancinco, we find no reason to
overturn the lower courts’ findings.
At any rate, we find the version of[Tancinco] that he was merely framed up by the
apprehending officers too incredulous vis-à-vis the positive evidence for the
[prosecution]. [Tancinco] merely offered the defenses of denial and frame [up]which
were uncorroborated by any positive testimony of the people who were allegedly with
him during the incident.
8. G.R. No. 190177 June 11, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VIVIAN BULOTANO y

AMANTE, Accused-Appellant.
Ground: Sale of illegal drugs punishable under Section 5, Artic1e II of Republic Act No.
9165,
Upon a tip-off, a team of agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
conducted a buy-bust operation to entrap Bulotano for allegedly selling illegal drugs or
shabu. During her arrest, she was informed of the reason for her arrest and of her
constitutional rights. Bulotano was then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory where
she was asked for her urine sample. When tested, the result came positive for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. The laboratory examination by the PNP
Crime Laboratory of the transparent plastic sachet containing crystalline substance also
tested positive for 0.10 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.
DEFENSE: The inventory of the alleged seized illegal drugs was not immediately done
after her arrest.
We affirm the conviction of the defendant for illegal sale of shabu.
In sum, the procedural requirements of Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 were not
followed. First,no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Second, the arresting
officers did not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime. Third,
although there was testimony about the marking of the seized items at the police
station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence of Bulotano.
Fourth, no representative of the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected
official attended the conduct of the physical inventory and signed the inventory. And
finally, the Chemistry Report was not duly notarized.
Despite noncompliance with the requirements in Section 21, there is no showing of a

break in the chain in the custody of the seized item, later on determined to be shabu,
from the moment of its seizure by the entrapment team, to the investigating officer, to
the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for
laboratory examination.37 The prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the required
photograph and inventory conducted in the presence of the accused and witnesses of
the seized drugs pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 will not
exonerate Bulotano.38 Noncompliance with the requirements is not fatal and will not
render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible.39 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.40
All the elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs has been
established beyond reasonable doubt (a) the identity of the buyer: PO1 Dagaraga; and
the seller: Bulotano; the object: shabu; and the consideration: P200.00 marked money;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.46
8. G.R. No. 188707 July 30, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.MANUELITA AMPATUAN y

GONZALES, ET AL., Accused,MASTOR SARIP y MARUHOM and WARREN TUMOG
y SAMPARADO, Accused-Appellants.
Violation: illegal sale of shabu, illegal possession of shahu and shabu paraphernalia,
punishable under Sections 5, 11 (3), and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A.
No. 9165), otherwise known as the "'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002".
Defense: Absence of Marked Money, breach of chain of custody.
Elements of Illegal Sale of Shabu Duly Established
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delictiof the case. The corpus
delictiis the seized illegal drugs.
The duty of the prosecution is not merely to present in evidence the seized illegal drugs.
It is essential that the illegal drugs seized from the suspect is the very same substance
offered in evidence in court as the identity of the drug must be established with the
same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt. 7
The absence of marked money does not run counter to the presented proof of illegal
sale of shabu.1âwphi1 Lack of marked money is not an element to the crime of illegal
sale of shabu.8 The marked money used in the buy-bust operation, although having
evidentiary value, is not vital to the prosecution of the case. It is merely corroborative in
nature. What is material to the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the illegal sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delictias evidence. In the case at bar, the prosecution duly established both.
9. G.R. No. 199874 July 23, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PETER FANG y GAMBOA

a.k.a. "Fritz" and JEFFERSON FANG y PERALTA, Accused, PETER FANG y
GAMBOA a.k.a. "Fritz," Accused-Appellant.
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
Appellant had been charged following a "buy-bust" operation. When arraigned,

appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued.The prosecution presented as witnesses:
Police Chief Inspector Hordan Pacatiw (Police Chief Inspector Pacatiw); PO2 Paulino
Abance Lubos, Jr. (PO2 Lubos), who acted as poseur-buyer; Police Inspector Emilia
Gracio Montes, the forensic chemist; PO2 Arturo San Andres, a back-up operative who
assisted a certain OfficerSabo; and PO1 Aldrin Mariano, who transmitted the drug
specimen confiscated from appellant to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory.
Defense: Conflicting testimonies as to the quantity of Shabu, violation of chain of
custody.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required
physical inventory in the place where the subject shabuwas seized does not
automatically render accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
A provisowas added in the implementing rules 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 seizuresof and custody over said items."
The mere fact that the drugs obtained were more, had no bearing on the crime charged.
This is because liability under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 is without regard to
the quantityof the drugs seized.
The prosecution was able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the said
illegal drugs.1avvphi1 The concurrence of all elements of the illegal sale of shabuwas
proven by the prosecution. Moreover, the rule is that inconsistencies in the testimony of
witnesses, when referring only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect
either the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony.
Such minor inconsistencies even enhance their veracity as the variances erase any
suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.17
10. G.R. No. 200987 August 20, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.RONALDO BAYAN y

NERI, Accused-Appellant.
Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
Police operatives from the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU) of the Novaliches
Police Station conducted a buy-bust operation on 5 July 2003 based on a tip from an
informant thata certain Ronaldo Bayan and Irene Bayan (Irene) were engaged in illegal
drug trade in BarangayCapri, Novaliches, Quezon City. The forensic chemist issued
anInitial Laboratory Report which revealed that the heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet with markings "EM" containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance was
found positive for shabu.6
Defense: Appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of appellant dueto the glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution’s witnesses.
Jurisprudence dictates that minor inconsistencies do not affect the credibility of the
witness. We have held that "discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of
witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of
the crime, do not impair their credibility. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate
each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence. In
fact, such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the witnesses’ credibility
as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed." 10
Failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause. It is not
indispensable in drugcases since it is merely corroborative evidence, and the absence
thereof does not create a hiatus inthe evidence for the prosecution provided the sale of
dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction
ispresented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of
any money used in the buy-bust operation.11
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be sufficiently
proved: (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.12 Indeed, all these elements
were duly established.
Appellant was caught in flagrante delictoselling shabuthrough a buy-bust operation

conducted by the operatives of SDEU of the Novaliches Police Station.
Furthermore, the prosecution was ableto preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of
the said illegal drugs.1âwphi1The prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the
following circumstances showing an unbroken chain of custody over the shabuthat was
seized from herein accusedappellant: (1) P02 Mendoza, who acted as the poseur-buyer
during the buybust operation, was the one who received the transparent plastic sachet
containing shabu from the appellant;14 (2) the said transparent plastic sachet was then
brought by PO2 Mendoza to the police station where he placed his initials "EM";15 (3)
thereafter, said sachet was brought to the crime laboratory for examination; 16 and (4)
the laboratory examination was conducted by Police Inspector Abraham Verde
Tecson.17
The result of the laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine

hydrochloride on the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet confiscated
from appellant. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
seller of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.
11. G.R. No. 181541 August 18, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs.MARISSA

MARCELO, Accused/Appellant.
violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended, was filed in the RTC of Sorsogon City, the
accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 1st day of August 2003 at about 7:30 o’clock in the evening at the
Visitor’s Inn, municipality of Donsol, province of Sorsogon, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without any authority of law, did
thenand there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, deliver and sell to Henry Tarog
METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu) weighing approximately 2.3234
grams contained in a plastic sachet, in exchange for P1,500.00, comprised of previously
marked bills, to the damage and prejudice of the State and the general public.
Defense: Frame up. No valid buy-bust operation
The Presentation of the Poseur-Buyer is not Indispensable.
Appellant’s insistence that the failure to present the poseur-buyer is fatal to the
prosecution fails to impress. "Therelevant information acquired by the [‘poseur-buyer’]
was equally known to the police officers who gave evidence for the prosecution at the
trial.They all took part in the planning and implementation of the [buy-bust] operation,
and all were direct witnesses to the actual sale of the [shabu, the appellant’s] arrest
immediately thereafter, and the recovery from [her] x x x of the marked money x x x.
The testimony of the [poseur-buyer] was not therefore indispensable or necessary; it
would have been cumulative merely, or corroborative at best." 19 His testimony can
therefore be dispensed with since the illicit transaction was actually witnessed and
adequately proved by the prosecution witnesses.20
There was no Evidence of Denial and Frame-up.
Appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up do not deserve credence. Denial cannot
prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses.24 On the other hand,
frame-up is viewed with disfavor since it can easily be fabricated and is a common ploy
in prosecution for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. For this defense to prosper, it
must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. There must also be evidence that
the police officers were inspired by improper motive.25
Here, aside from appellant’s self-serving testimony, her claim of frame-up is

unsubstantiated by other convincing evidence. It is alsounlikely thata team of police
officers would conduct an entrapment operation and arrest the appellant just to help the
poseur-buyer avoid payment of a debt.
Besides, appellant should have filed the proper charges against the police officers if she
was indeed the victim of a frame-up.1âwphi1 The failure to file administrative or criminal
charges against them substantiates the conclusion that the defense of frame-upwas a
mere concoction.26
In the absence of evidence that the prosecution witnesses were impelled by improper
motive to testify falsely, appellant failed to overturn the presumption that the arresting
officers regularly performed their duties. There is, therefore, no basis to suspect the
veracityof their statements.27
12. G.R. No. 206912 September 10, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DEMOSTHENES

BONTUYAN, Accused-Appellant.
Violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165),
otherwise known as thE Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
By virtue of Search Warrant issued by the court a quo against accused[-appellant], a

team of Police Officers together with some SWAT and CIIB members implemented and
onducted the search and found one (1) tin foil, two (2) used candles, one (1) disposable
lighter, (and) one (1) folded long tissue paper found on top of a small wooden stool and
therein twenty (20) small packs of white crystalline substance believed to be shabu.
PO2 [Tahanlangit] turned over the confiscated items to SPO1 Petallar for proper
inventory. The latter, who was designated as the "Recorder" then prepared a Receipt
and a Certificate of Good Conduct of the Search which were duly signed by Councilor
Bontuyan and Barangay Tanod Leyson. Accused refused to sign them. The police
officers then placed the accused under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights,
and proceeded to the Police Station with the confiscated items. SPO1 Petallar took
custody of the evidence and marked the twenty (20) plastic sachets with SW-DB-1 to
SW-DB-20.
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items as provided for by the rules. Records
show that immediately after the seizure of the illegal items recovered inside the house
of the accused-appellant, the designated searcher, PO2 [Tahanlangit], turned them over
to SPO1 Petallar who thereafter prepared the Receipt of Property Seized and the
Certification of Good Conduct Search both duly signed by witnesses Barangay
Councilor Bontuyan and Barangay Tanod Leyson. SPO1 Petallar took custody of the
seized items and marked them at the police station with SW-DB-1 to 20. The illegal
paraphernalia were placed inside a plastic cellophane collectively marked Exhibit "H".
At the police station, a Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared by Police
Chief Labra.1avvphi1 The request, together with the illegal drugs, were duly delivered
bySPO1 Petallar to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. As per Chemistry
Report No. D-1079-2005 duly admitted by the court a quo, the specimen submitted with
markings SW-DB-1 to 20 were positive for the presence of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Under the circumstance, the prosecution’s evidence
clearly established an unbroken link in the chain of custody, thus removing any doubt or
suspicion that the shabu and drug paraphernalia had been altered, substituted or
otherwise tampered with. The unbroken link inthe chain of custody also precluded the
possibility that a person, not in the chain, ever gained possession of the seized
evidence.26 (Emphases supplied)
Defense: Defense of denial and Failure to observe unbroken chain of custody
Admittedly, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost
always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.1âwphi1 What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value ofthe seized items. Here,
there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the seized items from
accusedappellant was preserved.
Accused-appellant further insists thatthe courts relied mainly on the version of the
prosecution’s witnesses and placed more weight on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty instead of the accused’s right to be presumed innocent.
W e held that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is
given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumedto have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary
suggesting illmotive on the part of the police officers. In this case, accused-appellant
failed to show that the police officers deviated from the regular performance of their
duties. His defense of denial is weakand self-serving. Unless corroborated by other
evidence, it cannot overcome the presumption that the police officers have performed
their duties ina regular and proper manner. The defense simply failed to show any ill
motive or odiousintent on the part of the police officers to impute such a serious crime
that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person, such as in the case
of accusedappellant.
13. G.R. No. 193385 December 1, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DATSGANDAWALI y GAPAS

and NOL PAGALAD y ANAS, Accused-Appellants.
Violation of Section Article II of RA 9165
A confidential informant informed the Baler Police Station 2 that a possible drug deal
would take place and Aa buy-bust team was thereupon created .The team along with
the informant proceeded to the target area and arrived there. In accordance with the
plan, after the sale PO2 Soriano signaled to his team members by taking off his cap. He
then arrested appellants together with PO1 Sarangaya, and the latter recovered from
Pagalad the P500.00 bill used as buy-bust money.
Defense: Police officers failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized item.
All the elements of the offense charged were duly established by the prosecution.
The essential requirements for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous

drugs, such as shabuare: "(1) the identity ofthe buyer and the seller, the object and
consideration ofthe sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor." Equally settled is the rule that "[t]he delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-
buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the
buy-bust transaction." Here, the Court is satisfied that the prosecution discharged its
burden of establishing all the aforesaid elements. The prosecution positively identified
appellants as the sellers of the seized substance which was later found to be positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Appellants’ contention that the
consideration of the sale was not established since the buy-bust money was
notpresented as evidence is unavailing. Suffice it to say that "[n]either law nor
jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust
operation x x x."15 "It is sufficient to show that the illicit transaction did take place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delictiin evidence. These weredone,
and were proved by the prosecution’s evidence."16
Defense: Defense of extortion and/or frame-up.
The defense of extortion and/or frame up is often put up in drug cases in order to cast
doubt on the credibility of police officers. This is a serious imputation of a crime hence
clear and convincing evidencemust be presented to support the same. There must also
be a showing that the police officers were inspired by improper motive." 23 In this case,
appellants claim that PO1 Sarangaya tried to extort from them P15,000.00 in exchange
for their release after they were arrested. However, they failed to substantiate this
allegation with clear and convincing evidence.1âwphi1Neither were they able to show
that the said police officer was impelled by improper motive in imputing the offense
against them. Consequently, appellants’ defense of extortion and/or frame-up must fail.
Conviction 2013
14. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs.RUPER POSING, G.R. No.

196973 July 31, 2013
Ground: Illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Sections
53 and 114 respectively, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
An asset based at Makabayan St., Brgy. Obrero informed the duty officer about the
illegal activities of certain Ruper Posing (Posing), a known drug pusher in their
barangay. As a result, Chief P/Inspector Arturo Caballes (Chief Caballes) formed a
team to conduct a buy bust operation. A one hundred peso bill (P100.00) was given by
Chief Caballes with his initials, to serve as the marked money. After the exnchange of
marked money, Posing was frisked, and the buy-bust money and another transparent
plastic sachet were recovered from him. Afterwards, the suspect and the evidence were
taken to the station.
Defense, Break on Chain of Custody
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which
implements R.A. No. 9165 defines "Chain of Custody" as follows:
"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 use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.
In Malillin v. People,36 we laid down the chain of custody requirements that must be met
in proving that the seized drugs are the same ones presented in court: (1) testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered into evidence; and (2) witnesses should 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 item.
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove, through the testimonies of its witnesses
that the integrity of the seized item was preserved every step of the process. After the
sale of shabu and another sachet was discovered in the person of accused-appellant,
SPO1 Angeles, who was the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation, marked the drug
specimens, and then turned over the same to the desk officer, who in turn handed it to
PO1 Sales. The latter then prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination, and on the
same day, the specimens were delivered by PO1 Nicart to the PNP Crime Laboratory
for quantitative and qualitative examination, conducted by Engr. Jabonillo.
15 . G.R. No. 197250 July 17, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REYNALDO "ANDY" SOMOZA
Ground: violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received confidential information that

accused-appellant is engaged in the repacking and selling of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, and conducting his business in his residence
at Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City.6 The NBI coordinated with the Philippine National
Police (PNP) in Dumaguete City and discreet inquiries and surveillance were made to
verify the information. After the succesful buy bust operation the accused-appellant was
charged for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Defense:Irregularity of the inventory, Broken Chain of Custody
Accused-appellant is clutching at straws in insisting on the following: non-presentation

of the full amount of the marked money, lack of pre-operation report, inconsistency in
the testimonies on who recovered the sachets of shabu and what the total weight of the
said sachets is, and irregularity of the inventory.
The inventory made at accused-appellant’s house and not at the scene of the buy-bust
operation did not adversely affect the chain of custody. Indeed, Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165 which provides for the chain of custody of dangerous drugs seized by law
enforcers is silent on the matter of marking of the seized drugs. In particular, its
paragraph (1) only speaks of conducting a physical inventory and photographing of the
illicit drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation":
"Marking" is the placing by the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with
his/her initials and signature on the items seized. It helps ensure that the dangerous
drugs seized upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs subjected to inventory
and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station or at some
other practicable venue 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
"Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. 5 Indeed, marking upon immediate
confiscation has been interpreted as to even include marking at the nearest police
station or office of the apprehending team. In this case, the dangerous drugs taken from
accused-appellant were marked in his presence immediately upon confiscation at the
very venue of his arrest.
16. G.R. No. 193661 August 14, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.RYAN BLANCO Y SANGKULA,
Ground: illegal sale and possession of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a

dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, 1st paragraph and Section 11, 3rd paragraph
of Article 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Defense: Invalid Buy bust operation, non presentation of confidential informant.
He particularly claims that the conduct of a surveillance and test-buy operation by the
buy-bust team is crucial to his conviction. Thus, appellant insists that the presentation of
the confidential informant is necessary in this case. Appellant also questions the
propriety of conducting a buy-bust operation by the apprehending police officers against
him.
We find appellant's contentions not sustainable and are indeed utterly untenable.
Indeed in the instant case, all the elements constituting the illegal sale of dangerous
drug are present.1âwphi1 The sale of shabu was consummated. The alleged
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are mere minor matters,
which do not detract from the fact that a buy-bust operation was
conducted.Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to
minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, its
veracity or the weight of their testimonies.The non- presentation of the confidential
informant is not fatal to the prosecution. lnformants are usually not presented in court
because of the need to hide their identity and maintain their valuable service to the
police.
17. G.R. No. 185383 September 25, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

GIOVANNI OCFEMIA y CHAVEZ
Ground: Illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Diefense: Sale not duly established by corpus delicte.
Upon review, the Court concludes that the factual findings of RTC Judge Vasquez, as
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are sufficiently supported by the evidence on record.
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements
must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material to the
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as
evidence.25
The prosecution herein was able to duly establish all the essential elements of the crime
charged against accused-appellant. First, it was sufficiently shown that the PDEA and
the PNP-CIDG jointly conducted a legitimate buy-bust operation against accused-
appellant on February 21,2003. PO2 Aldea, as the poseur-buyer, paidP500.00 to
accused-appellant, who, in turn, handed to PO2 Aldea a small heat-sealed plastic
sachet containing 0.0953 grams of shabu. Second, the very same sachet of shabu sold
by accused-appellant to PO2 Aldea was presented as evidence by the prosecution
during trial.
18. G.R. No. 191263 October 16, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

vs.HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA,
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Ground: violation of Section 53 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the

Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Accused appellant was apprehended through a regular frisking by Non-Uniformed

Personnel of the Philippine National Police at Manila Domestic Airport, and as result
thereof two (2) sachets of Shabu were recovered.
Denfese: Airport Frisking, Illegal search.
On a final note, we held that airport frisking is an authorized form of search and
seizure.1âwphi1 As held in similar cases of People v Johnson73 and People v
Canton,74 this Court affirmed the conviction or the accused Leila Reyes Johnson and
Susan Canton for violation of drugs law when they were found to be in hiding in their
body illegal drugs upon airport frisking. The Court in both cases explained the rationale
for the validity of airport frisking thus:
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure or their
persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack or subjective expectation
of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such
recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern over
airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the nation s airports.
Passengers attempting to hoard an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors: their
carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage arc routinely subjected to x-ray scans.
Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects. physical searches
are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little question that such
searches arc reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity or the safety
interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel.
Indeed. travellers are often notified through airport public address systems, signs, and
notices in their airline tickets that the are subject to search and. if any prohibited
materials or substances are found, such would he subject to seizure. These
announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections
against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures. 75
19. G.R. No. 196966 October 23, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE v. MICHAEL MAONGCO and PHANS BANDALI
Grounds: violating Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Accused-appellants were separately charged for illegally dispensing, delivering,

transporting, distributing, or acting as brokers of dangerous drugs.
One of the appellants, Bandali was charged for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, but on
trial he was convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Defense: No intent to possess.
For the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the following
essential elements must be proven, namely: (1) the accused is in possession of an item
or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized
by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possess the said drug. Accused-
appellant Maongco informed the police officers that the other sachet of shabu was in the
possession of accused-appellant Bandali. Accused-appellant Bandali herein was in
possession of the sachet of shabu as he was sitting at Jollibee Pantranco branch and
was approached by PO2 Ong. Hence, accused-appellant Bandali was able to
immediately produce and surrender the said sachet upon demand by PO2 Ong.
Accused-appellant Bandali, admittedly jobless at the time of his arrest did not have any
authority to possess shabu. And as to the last element, the rule is settled that
possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or
animus possidendi, which is sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a
satisfactory explanation of such possession.
But can accused-appellant Bandali be convicted for illegal possession of dangerous

drugs under Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 when he was charged with
illegal dispensation, delivery, transportation, distribution or acting as broker of
dangerous drugs under Article II, Section 5 of the same statute? The Court answers in
the affirmative.
Rule 120, Section 4 of the Rules of Court governs situations where there is a variance
between the crime charged and the crime proved, to wit:
Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof. – When there is
variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved,
and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved,
the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense
charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.
Well-settled in jurisprudence that the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs

necessarily includes the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The same
ruling may also be applied to the other acts penalized under Article II, Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 because for the accused to be able to trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit, or transport any
dangerous drug, he must necessarily be in possession of said drugs.
20. G.R. No. 190180 November 27, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.MARISSA CASTILLO
Ground: violation of Section 5 and Section 11 (sale and possession of illegal drugs,
respectively), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.
A confidential informant (CI) came and informed PO2 Santos and his colleagues at the
said office about the illegal activity of the accused Marissa Castillo and one alias
"Ompong" who were reported to be selling shabu along J.B. Miguel St., Brgy. Bambang,
Pasig City. Upon receiving the information, PSI Hoover Pascual, the team leader of the
drug enforcement unit conducted a briefing to discuss the details of the buy bust
operation that would be undertaken against the accused.
Defense: Frame up
With respect to her defense, appellant raised the claim that she was innocent of the
charges and was merely framed by the police officers who arrested her. Nevertheless,
in one case, we thoroughly explained why this Court is usually wary of a defense of
denial in drug cases, thus:
Further, the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust are generally
accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance
of public duties. Hence, when lined against an unsubstantiated denial or claim of frame-
up, the testimony of the officers who caught the accused red-handed is given more
weight and usually prevails. In order to overcome the presumption of regularity,
jurisprudence teaches us that there must be clear and convincing evidence that the
police officers did not properly perform their duties or that they were prompted with ill-
motive.2
Lacking unprejudiced testimony to support her denial and without her making any
allegation as to any ill motive on the part of the police officers who arrested her during a
legitimate buy-bust operation, this Court is not inclined to overturn appellant s conviction
for the sale and possession of illegal drugs.
21. G.R. No. 203433 November 27, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.FAISAL LOKS
Ground: violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 R.A. No. 9165),
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Loks was accused of violating R.A. No. 9165 for the sale of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, throug a buy bust operation implemented
and conducted by the Manila City Police.
Defense: Buy bust operation is invalid. Arrest is illegal.
"[A] buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law,
for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors."2 Since Loks was caught by the buy-
bust team in flagrante delicto, his immediate arrest was also validly made. The accused
was caught in the act and had to be apprehended on the spot. From the very nature of a
buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant did not make the arrest illegal. Section
5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court authorizes a warrantless arrest by a peace officer
and even a private person "when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed or is attempting to commit an offense." The legitimate warrantless arrest also
cloaks the arresting police officer with the authority to validly search and seize from the
offender those that may be used to prove the commission of the offense.
22. G.R. No. 189840 December 11, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. JAY MONTEVIRGEN y OZARAGA,
Ground: Crime of illegal sale and possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article
II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Defense: Non-inventory of the confiscated drugs are indamissible in evidence.
Failure to physically inventory and photograph the shabu seized from an accused in the
manner prescribed by law do not invalidate his arrest or render said drug inadmissible in
evidence if its integrity and evidentiary value remain intact. It could still be utilized in
determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.1
Here, the absence of evidence that the buy-bust team made an inventory and took
photographs of the drugs seized from appellant was not fatal since the prosecution was
able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu. PO3 Ruiz, the poseur-
buyer and apprehending officer, marked the seized items in front of appellant,
the barangay captain and other members of the buy-bust team, immediately after the
consummation of the drug transaction. He then delivered the seized items to the duty
investigator, who in turn sent the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination on
the same day. During trial, PO3 Ruiz was able to identify the said markings and explain
how they were made.
Clearly, there was no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and
examination of the shabu.1âwphi1The illegal drugs that were confiscated from
appellant, taken to the police headquarters, subjected to qualitative examination at the
crime laboratory, and finally introduced in evidence against appellant were the same
illegal drugs that were confiscated from him when he was caught in flagrante
delicto selling and possessing the same.
Appellant’s contention that the buy-bust team should have coordinated with the PDEA
on the day the entrapment operation occurred deserves scant consideration.
Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable element of a proper buy-bust
operation. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere noncoordination with the
PDEA.
23. G.R. No. 199938 January 28, 2013

CAMALOUING SAMANODING LABA
Ground: violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 91653 and sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and costs.
Accused appellant appellant arrived at the Manila Domestic Airport in Pasay City to take
his flight bound for Davao City. When he approached the initial check-in area, Mark
Anthony Villocillo (Villocillo), a non-uniformed personnel (NUP) frisker assigned thereat,
physically searched the person of appellant and suspected that the latter’s oversized
white rubber shoes, with the identifying mark "Spicer," seemed to contain what felt like
rice. Upon inspection of the rubber shoes, which Villocillo asked appellant to
remove,8 the former discovered three (3) plastic sachets containing shabu– two plastic
sachets were inside the left shoe while one was inside the right shoe.
Defense: Denial and Frame Up.
Appellant was convicted of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, which 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 such transactions. (Emphasis
supplied)
All the elements for transportation of drugs, i.e., actual physical possession and control
of the prohibited drugs, coupled with the presentation of the corpus delicti in court have
been established by the prosecution. It found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses
Villocillo and SPO2 Peji to be candid, forthright and reliable. Moreover, as law
enforcers, they were presumed to have regularly performed their official duties.
The Court sustains appellant’s conviction.
24. G.R. No. 194253 February 27, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. MAGSALIN DIWA
Ground: violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dongerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Diwa was charged in two separate Informations for illegal sale and illegal possession
of marijuana, a dangerous drug:
CRIM CASE NO. 68962
Defnse: Frame up
The presumption that official duty has been regularly performed, and the corresponding
testimony of the arresting officers on the buy-bust transaction, can only be overcome
through clear and convincing evidence showing either of two things: (1) that they were
not properly performing their duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive.
In the face of the straightforward and direct testimony of the police officers, and absent
any improper motive on their part to frame up Diwa, stacked against the bare and thin
self-serving testimony of Diwa, we find no reason to overturn the lower courts’ findings.
Diwa makes much of the fact that the police operatives did not follow to the letter the
text of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, in that they were unaware whether or not
an inventory was made of the seized items, or photos taken thereof. Regrettably for
Diwa, and as found by both lower courts, the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs
(corpus delicti) was duly accounted for and remained unbroken as demonstrated by the
marking placed by PO3 Galvez on the substance, from the time it was seized from Diwa
until the police turned it over to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis.
CONVICTION 2012
25. People of the Philippine Vs. Cipriano Cardenas, Gr. 190345, March 21, 2012
Ground: violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Defense: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. NO.
9165. void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;
Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply
with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the present case, we
see substantial compliance by the police with the required procedure on the
custody and control of the confiscated items, thus showing that the integrity of
the seized evidence was not compromised. We refer particularly to the
succession of events established by evidence, to the overall handling of the
seized items by specified individuals, to the test results obtained, under a
situation where no objection to admissibility was ever raised by the defense. All
these, to the unprejudiced mind, show that the evidence seized were the same
evidence tested and subsequently identified and testified to in court. In People v.
Del Monte, we explained:
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.
26. People of the Philippines v. Jerome Paler G.R. No. 188103, March 7, 2012
Ground:violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 under the Information which states:
Defense: Failure to account the seized item upon confiscation.
To cast doubt as to the identity and integrity of the shabu, the appellant claims
that the police officers failed to account for the chain of custody of the seized item
alleged to be shabu.
Contrary to the appellants defense, there is no break in the chain of custody of

the seized item found to be shabu from the time the police asset turned it over to PO3
Balbutin, to the time it was turned over to PO1 Gula, the PACTs evidence custodian, up
to its presentation to and photographing before the media, Department of Justice, public
official, and up to the time that the shabu was brought to the forensic chemist at the
PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination.
Plainly, the prosecution established the crucial links in the chain of custody of the
sold and seized sachet of shabu, from the time it was first seized from the appellant,
until it was brought for examination and presented in court. The identity, quantity and
quality of the illegal drugs remained untarnished and preserved; hence, the integrity of
the drugs seized remained intact.
27. G.R. No. 194721 August 15, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs.

JOHN BRIAN AMARILLO y MAPA a.k.a. JAO MAPA
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
On April 8, 2006, PO1 Mendoza x x x received a telephone call from an informant that a
certain Jao Mapa (later identified as the Accused- Appellant) was selling prohibited
narcotics at Laperal Compound, Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City. Immediately, a briefing
for a buy-bust operation was conducted. The buy-bust team prepared Three Hundred
Pesos (PhP 300.00) worth of marked money and designated PO1 Mendoza as the
poseur-buyer. The other members of the team were PO2 Lique, PO1 Randy Santos,
and PO1 Voltaire Esquerra. The team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency before proceeding to the target area.
Defense: Non Marking of seized items upon confiscation, violation of unbroken chain of
custody
We find no merit in the arguments of the defense that the arresting officers did not
testify that the marking of the seized items were done in the presence of the persons
mentioned by the law and its implementing rules; and that testimonies on how the
confiscated items were turned over to the investigator for examination were lacking
As to the required "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, and any elected public official," Section
21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 specifically
provides:
The apprehending officer/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, and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory 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;
28. . G.R. No. 191532 August 15, 2012
People of the Philippines v. MARGARITA AMBRE Y CAYUNI
Crime of violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
For illegal possession of drug paraphernalia docketed as Criminal Case No. C-73028,
and illegal use of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu,
docketed as Criminal Case No. C-73029
Pursuant to an entrapment operation, Sultan ran away from the scene of the
enrtapment, police officers, pursued him; that in the course of the chase, Sultan led the
said police officers to his house; that inside the house, the police operatives found
Ambre, Castro and Mendoza having a pot session; that Ambre, in particular, was caught
sniffing what was suspected to be shabu in a rolled up aluminum foil; and that PO3
Moran ran after Sultan while PO2 Masi and PO1 Mateo arrested Ambre, Castro and
Mendoza for illegal use of shabu. The items confiscated from the three were marked
and, thereafter, submitted for laboratory examination.
Defense: Arrest is Illegal. No valid warrantless arrest. Evidence obtained are fruits
of the poisonous tree.
The conviction of Ambre stands.
In arrest in flagrante delicto, the accused is apprehended at the very moment he is

committing or attempting to commit or has just committed an offense in the presence of
the arresting officer. Clearly, to constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two
requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.
In the case at bench, there is no gainsaying that Ambre was caught by the police
officers in the act of using shabu and, thus, can be lawfully arrested without a warrant.
Considering that the warrantless arrest of Ambre was valid, the subsequent search and
seizure done on her person was likewise lawful. Ambre's assertion that her conviction
was incorrect, because the evidence against her was obtained in violation of the
procedure laid down in R.A. No. 9165, is untenable.
In this case, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised. Hence, even
though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and
photograph of the drug paraphernalia with traces of shabu, this will not render Ambre's
arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.
29. G.R. No. 188571 October 10, 2012

MARICAR BRAINER
Ground: Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as
"The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Failure of the accused to raise non-compliance by the buy-bust team with

Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 on the rial court is deemed a waiver of
her right to question on appeal. Settled rule is that no question will be entertained on
appeal unless it had been raised in the court below. Points of law, theories, issues, and
arguments not adequately brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and
ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the
first time on appeal.
However, The Court calls Brainer’s attention to Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations which expounds on how Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
is to be applied and, notably, also provides for a saving mechanism in case the
procedure laid down in the law was not strictly complied with, to wit:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory 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 ours.)
This Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the arresting officer to
comply strictly with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal. It will not render the
arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
What is of utmost important 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.
30. G.R. No. 179936 April 11, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

vs. JAMAD ABEDIN
violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.3
Defense: Non coordination of apprehending officers to PDEA in entrapment cases

would render entrapment invalid.
We are not convinced.
This Court, however, has already expounded on the nature and importance of a buy-
bust operation and ruled that coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable
requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation. While it is true
that Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and
the Bureau of Customs to maintain "close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-
related matters," the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA’s participation a
condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation. After all, a buy-bust is just a form of
an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court which
police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of R.A. No. 9165 in
support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination
with the PDEA.
Neither is the lack of prior surveillance fatal. It must be stressed that prior surveillance is
not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation. This issue in the
prosecution of illegal drugs cases, again, has long been settled by this Court. We have
been consistent in our ruling that prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust
operation, especially if the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by their
informant.
31. People of the philippines v. Jesusa Figueroa, Gr. No. 186141
Ground:Violation of Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Defense: Lack of Prior Coordination with

the PDEA
Accused-appellants contention is unmeritorious. It is settled that Section 86 of

Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the the law
enforcers failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. Thus, in People v.
Berdadero,[13] the Court noted that Section 86, as well as the Internal Rules and
Regulations implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on
the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a
buy-bust operation.This Court consequently held that this silence [cannot] be interpreted
as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or
evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.
32. GR. No. 182059 July 4, 2012

CAMILO D. NICART and MANUEL T. CAPANPAN
Ground:illegal sale of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (RA
9165) and accused-appellant Manuel Capanpan (Capanpan) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu in violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of the same Act.3
Accused-appellant Capanpan was engaged in drug peddling received the marked

money from his co accused Camilo when the latter handed him, in turn, gave
Camilo a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Upon receiving the
plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu from Camilo, PO1 Decena immediately
grabbed the former by the hand and introduced himself as a police officer and that he
was arresting him for violation of the dangerous drugs law. He handcuffed Camilo and
frisked him. Decena, however, did not recover anything illegal from Camilo except the
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance that he bought from him.
Defense: Denial, No sale was made.
We affirm the appellants’ conviction.
Thus, present in the instant case are the following requisites for illegal sale of shabu:
"(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; xxx (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing[; and
(c)] the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence." Likewise present are the
essential elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug, to wit: "(a) [that] the
accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or
dangerous drug; (b) [that] such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) [that] the
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug."
All considered, the credible testimonies of the arresting officers and their positive
identification of the appellants should prevail over the bare denial of the defense 31 nor
the conflicting and incomplete testimonies of their witnesses. "Denial, if unsubstantiated
by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence which deserves
no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of
credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters."
33. G.R. No. 191753 September 17, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,vs.

RONALD DE JESUS y APACIBLE and AMELITO DELA CRUZ.
Ground: violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (against appellants
De Jesus and Dela Cruz)6 and Section 11, Article II of the same law (against appellant
Dela Cruz.
Defense: Non compliance of chain of custody, failure to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
The corpus delicti in both the offenses of sale and of possession of shabu were proven
with reasonable certainty as the police substantially complied with the prescribed
procedure under Section 21(a), Article II of RA No. 9165, its implementing rules, and the
chain of custody rule. What assumes primary importance in drug cases is the
prosecution’s proof, to the point of moral certainty, that the prohibited drug presented in
court as evidence against the accused is the same item recovered from his possession.
In this case, the prosecution achieved this level of proof through evidence sufficiently
establishing the links in the chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time of its
seizure until it was presented in court.
34. G.R. No. 184606 September 5, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. CALEXTO DUQUE FUNDALES, JR., .
Ground: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic
Act (RA) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentenced
Defense: Non compliance of Chain of Custody. Hence, the prosectuion failed to prove
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the

following elements are present: (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 thereto."28
This Court is convinced that the prosecution sufficiently discharged the burden of
establishing the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and in proving the guilt of
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Appellant insists that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. He argues that the prosecution's failure to present the forensic chemist during
trial was fatal to its cause. This Court is not persuaded. We have already ruled in a
number of cases that non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drugs cases is
an insufficient cause for acquittal.
Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the testimony of the laboratory analyst. In
fact, this Court has ruled that the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a
recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation.
35. G.R. No. 200951 September 5, 2012

JOSE ALMODIEL alias "DO DONG ASTROBAL,"
Violation of Section 5, Article II (Sale of Dangerous Drugs)3 of Republic Act No. 9165
(RA 9165) or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Defense: No valid warrant of arrest. Evidence is inadmissible.
sSince a buy-bust operation was conducted, there was no necessity for a warrant of
arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court. The CA found that the
defense’s version of the events was not credible considering that the accused did not
object to his arrest or file any complaint against the police officers. On the chain of
custody rule, the CA held that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal as
long as there is justifiable ground, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
drugs are preserved, as in this case.
Hence, this appeal.12
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
The elements necessary for a prosecution for violation of RA 9165 or sale of dangerous
drugs are: (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.13 What is material is the proof
that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of
the corpus delicti.14
In the present case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established.
PO2 Virtudazo testified that a buy-bust operation took place, to wit:
PROSECUTOR GUIRITAN:
Q: On March 20, 2003 at about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, where were you at that
time?
A: I was at Purok 9, Barangay 15, San Ignacio, Langihan Road, Butuan City.
Q: Why were you there in that place?
A: Because we were conducting an entrapment operation.
xxxx
Q: You already mentioned last time that you were already at the place at about 2:00
o’clock of March 20, 2003, and you were with your back-up Lumawag and your
confidential agent. When you arrived at that place what happened actually?
A: At 2:00 o’clock the accused arrived in the place and he gave me the two (2) sachets
of "shabu."
Q: How did the accused know that you will be the buyer?
A: I was introduced by our confidential agent to him.
Q: Now you said the accused handed to you "shabu", how many sachets, if you recall?
A: Two (2) sachets, Sir.
Q: When already in possession of those two (2) sachets of "shabu", what did you do?
A: I examined it if it is indeed "shabu."
Q: What was your findi[n]gs?
A: That it was real "shabu."
Q: How did you know that it was a "shabu"?
A: Based on my experience.15
Upon clarificatory questioning by the court, PO2 Virtudazo testified that the accused
agreed to sell shabu to him, thus:
Q: So what did you do when the accused was already with the asset?
A: I was introduced by our asset to the accused and at that point in time I also told the
accused that I was interested to buy "shabu."
Q: And the accused what did he do to you?
A: He agreed and then left immediately.
Q: What did you agree with the accused?
A: That he will give me "shabu."
Q: Why will the accused give you "shabu"?
A: Because I was going to buy it from him.

Q: For how much?
A: Worth P 400.00.16
PO3 Lumawag materially corroborated the testimony of PO2 Virtudazo as to the

conduct of the buy-bust operation, to wit:
Q: What happened when the accused arrived?
A: When the accused arrived they talked with each other then after more or less two
(2) minutes, the suspect left the area.
xxxx
Q: Now what happened after that?
A: After the suspect left the area, after another twenty-five (25) minutes more or less,
he came back and met Virtudazo at that area.
xxxx
Q: Now, when the accused went back, what happened next?
A: I observed that the accused approached Virtudazo and he gave something to

Virtudazo. When Virtudazo tried to inspect the items given to him, that’s the time that
Virtudazo gave the pre-arranged signal by turning his cap.
Q: And, what did you do?
A: So, when PO2 Virtudazo gave the pre-arranged signal that’s thetime I rushed up
and apprehended the suspect.
xxxx
Q: How many shabu was given by him to your poseur-buyer?
A: Two (2) sachets, sir.
Q: How did you come to know of that?
A: Because when I approached him, Virtudazo also showed to me that that is the
shabu given to him by the suspect.17
Both testimonies of PO2 Virtudazo and PO3 Lumawag positively identified PO2
Virtudazo as the poseur-buyer and the accused as the seller of two sachets containing
white crystalline substance for P 400.00. The confiscated sachets were brought to the
crime laboratory for examination, where a chemical analysis on the substance
confirmed that the same was shabu. The sachets containing shabu were positively
identified by PSInsp. Banogon during the trial as the same sachets seized from the
accused.
The accused, however, contends that there was no sale since the marked money was
not delivered to the accused or presented in Court. Cruz v. People18 is instructive in
ruling that the failure to present the buy-bust money is not fatal to the case.
x x x The marked money used in the buy-bust operation is not indispensable but merely
corroborative in nature. In the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence
of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long
as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the
transaction is presented before the court. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the
presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.19
It has been settled that credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police
officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police
officers.20 In the present case, the claim of ill-motive was not substantiated by the
accused. The trial court found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses convincing,
categorical and credible. Findings of the trial court, which are factual in nature and
which involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors,
gross misapprehension of facts or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions
are made from such findings.21 This rule finds an even more stringent application where
the findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, as in the present case. 22
The accused denied the charge against him, and alleged frame-up and planting of
evidence by the police officers. In Quinicot v. People,23 we held that allegations of
frame-up by police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous
drugs cases. 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.24 Here, the accused made a bare allegation
without presenting clear and convincing evidence to support his claim. Felix and Max
testified that they did not witness the incident between the accused and the police
officers before the arrest.25 Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, the accused’s plain denial of the offense charged, unsubstantiated by any
credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.26
Thus, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against
the accused, 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 the
accused’s self-serving and uncorroborated denial.27
Arrest During a Buy-bust Operation

The accused contends that the police officers arrested him without securing a warrant of
arrest. Consequently, his arrest was unlawful, making the sachets of shabu allegedly
seized from him inadmissible in evidence.
Under Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a person may be arrested without a
warrant if he "has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense."28 The accused was caught in the act of committing an offense during a buy-
bust operation. When an accused is apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a
buy-bust operation, the police officers are not only authorized but duty-bound to arrest
him even without a warrant.29 An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not
require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid "warrantless arrest." 30
The accused argues that force and intimidation attended his arrest when four police
officers arrested him and one of them pointed a gun at him. However, his allegations
were not supported by evidence. On the contrary, the CA found that the defense neither
objected to the accused’s arrest nor filed any complaint against the police officers.
Considering that an arrest was lawfully made, the search incidental to such arrest was
also valid. A person lawfully arrested may be searched, without a search warrant, for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense.31 Accordingly, the two sachets of shabu seized in the present
case are admissible as evidence.
The Chain of Custody Requirement
The accused contends that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the shabu
in accordance with the requirements under RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations.32 The defense particularly alleges that there was no photograph of the
seized items and there was no barangay official present during the incident.
We find the claim unmeritorious. In the prosecution of drug cases, it is of paramount

importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established
beyond doubt.33 It is precisely in this regard that RA 9165, particularly its Section
21,34 prescribes the procedure to ensure the existence and identity of the drug seized
from the accused and submitted to the court.
The Implementing Rules of RA 9165 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."35 In People v. Rosialda,36 People v. Llamado,37 and People v.
Rivera,38 the Court had the occasion to apply such flexibility when it ruled that the failure
of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical
inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated is not fatal and does not
automatically render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him
inadmissible.
The Court consistently held 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.39 In other words, it must be
established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as
evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first
place.40 The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.41
Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, 42 which
implements RA 9165, defines "chain of custody" as follows:
"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 use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.43
Malillin v. People44 explained that the chain of custody rule would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was
offered in 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 that there was no opportunity for someone not in the chain to
have possession of the same.45
In People v. Kamad,46 the Court ruled that the links that must be established in the
chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are: 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.
For the first link, PO2 Virtudazo positively testified that he was in possession of the two
sachets of shabu from the time of the buy-bust operation up to the PDEA office.47 PO3
Lumawag corroborated his testimony.48 Then, PO2 Virtudazo marked the confiscated
two sachets of shabu using the initials of PO3 Lumawag, "APL-1" and "APL-2," to help
him remember that PO3 Lumawag was his companion at that time.49 PO2 Virtudazo
prepared the Certificate of Inventory, which was signed by their team leader SPO4
Arnaldo, Prosecutor Guiritan and a media representative.50 PO3 Lumawag testified that
barangay officials were not present because some barangay officials were suspected of
involvement in illegal drugs.51
As to the second and third link, PO2 Virtudazo, together with SPO3 Alota and PO3
Lumawag, brought the accused and the two sachets to the crime laboratory on the
same day of the arrest.52 For the final link, forensic chemist PSInsp. Banogon testified
that he examined the two sachets, marked with "APL-1" and "APL-2," and submitted
them on 20 March 2003 to PO1 Monton, the PNCO desk officer of the crime
laboratory.53 In his Chemistry Report No. D-061-2003, PSInsp. Banogon found the
substance in the two sachets positive of shabu. PSInsp. Banogon took possession of
the shabu until he identified and offered the same to the court.54 Accordingly, the
prosecution substantially complied with the requirements under RA 9165 and sufficiently
established the crucial links in the chain of custody. The integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized shabu remain unimpaired.
The accused argues that SPO4 Arnaldo, SPO3 Alota and PO1 Monton should have
testified in court.1âwphi1 But in People v. Habana,55 we held that there is no
requirement for the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who
had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the prohibited
drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the
prosecutor.56 It is even possible to reach a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the
testimony of a lone witness.57 Furthermore, as aptly ruled by the CA, there was no need
for other persons in the chain of custody to testify, since their testimonies would only
corroborate that of PO2 Virtudazo.
In fine, the evidence for the prosecution established that during a buy-bust operation,
the accused was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of selling two sachets of shabu to
a police officer, who acted as a poseur-buyer. Thus, the guilt of the accused had been
proven in the instant case beyond reasonable doubt.
Under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the crime of unauthorized sale of shabu,

regardless of the quantity and purity thereof, is punishable with life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from five -hundred thousand pesos (P 500,000.00) to ten
million pesos (PI 0,000,000.00). Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
11500,000.00 was correctly imposed by the RTC and the CA on accused Jose Almodiel
alias "Dodong Astrobal" for illegal sale of shabu.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 14 November

2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 00632-MIN in toto.
13. G.R. No. 184181 November 26, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JOSEPH ROBELO y TUNGALA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
This is another instance where we are called upon to resolve an issue concerning the
constitutional presumption of innocence accorded to an accused vis-à-vis the
corresponding presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of police
officers involved in a drug buy-bust operation.
Assailed in this appeal interposed by appellant Joseph Robelo y Tungala is February

27, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02711, which
affirmed the January 26, 2007 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the City of
Manila, Branch 2, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal
Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 11(3) and (5) in
relation to Section 26, Article II, respectively, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Factual Antecedents
At about 10:00 a.m. of March 26, 2004, the Station of Anti-Illegal Drugs Special
Operation Task Force (SAID), Police Station 2 in Moriones, Tondo, Manila received
information from a civilian informer that a certain alias "Kalbo" (appellant) is involved in
the sale of illegal drugs in Parola Compound. Forthwith, the Chief of SAID organized a
team composed of eight police officers to conduct a "buy-bust" operation to entrap
appellant. PO2 Arnel Tubbali (PO2 Tubbali) was designated as the poseur-buyer and
was thus handed a 100 peso bill which he marked with his initials. The rest of the team
were to serve as back-ups.
The civilian asset led PO2 Tubbali to the target area while others positioned themselves
in strategic places. Not long after, appellant came out from Gate 16, Area 1-b with a
companion who was later identified as Teddy Umali (Umali). Upon approaching the two,
the civilian informer introduced to them PO2 Tubbali as a friend and a prospective buyer
of shabu. PO2 Tubbali then conveyed his desire to buy P100.00 worth of shabu and
handed Umali the marked P100.00 bill. After accepting the money, Umali ordered
appellant to give PO2 Tubbali one plastic sachet of shabu to which the latter readily
complied. PO2 Tubbali then looked at the plastic sachet, placed it in his pocket, and
made the pre-arranged signal by scratching his butt. Whereupon, the rest of the team
rushed to the scene and arrested appellant and Umali. When frisked by PO2 Conrado
Juano, one plastic sachet suspected to contain shabu was found inside appellant’s
pocket. He and Umali were afterwards brought to the precinct where the investigator
marked the seized items with the initials "JRT-1" and "JRT-2". The investigator then
prepared the Laboratory Request,3 Booking Sheet,4 Arrest Report,5 Joint Affidavit of
Apprehension6 and a referral letter for inquest.7
After qualitative examination, the forensic chemist found the items positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
Appellant was accordingly charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu in
two separate Informations while Umali was indicted in another Information raffled to a
different branch of the RTC.
The Informations against appellant read as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 04-225284
That on or about March 26, 2004, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and
control one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ZERO NINETEEN
(0.019) gram of white crystalline substance known as shabu, containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 04-225285
That on or about March 26, 2004, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring and confederating with one whose true name, identity and present
whereabouts are still unknown and mutually helping each other, not having been
authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale one (1)
transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ZERO THIRTEEN (0.013) gram of
white crystalline substance known as shabu, containing methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.9
During arraignment, appellant, assisted by his counsel, pleaded "not guilty" in the two
cases. After the termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits immediately ensued.
Appellant denied being a drug pusher and claimed complete ignorance as to why he
was being implicated in the said crimes. He averred that he was repairing the floor of his
mother’s house when two police officers in civilian clothes went inside the house,
ransacked the closet and without any reason handcuffed and brought him to the
precinct. At the precinct, the police officers demanded from him P10,000.00 in
exchange for his liberty.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
After trial, the RTC rendered a verdict of conviction on January 26, 2007,10 viz:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit:

1. In Criminal Case No. 04-225284, finding accused, Joseph Robelo y Tungala @
"Kalbo", GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 17
years and 4 months as maximum; to pay a fine of P300,000,00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
2. In Criminal Case No. 04-225285, finding accused, Joseph Robelo y Tungala @

"Kalbo", GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby
sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
The specimens are forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court,
accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon
receipt the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for
proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED.11
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA concurred with the RTC’s findings and conclusions and,
consequently, affirmed the said lower court’s judgment in its assailed Decision 12 of
February 27, 2008, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated January
26, 2007 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.13
Still undeterred, appellant is now before us and by way of assignment of errors

reiterates the grounds and arguments raised in his Brief filed before the CA, to wit:
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF

CONVICTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT

GUILTY BEYOND REASOANBLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
NOTWITHSTANDING THE POLICE OFFICERS’ FAILURE TO REGULARLY
PERFORM THEIR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS.14
Our Ruling
The appeal has no merit.
Appellant’s first assignment of error basically hinges on the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses, particularly in their conduct of the buy-bust operation. He asserts that the
alleged buy-bust operation is tainted with infirmity due to the absence of a prior
surveillance or investigation. Moreover, per the testimony of PO2 Tubbali, appellant did
not say anything when the former was introduced to him as an interested buyer of
shabu. Appellant points out that it is contrary to human nature that the seller would say
nothing to the buyer who is a complete stranger to him.
We sustain the validity of the buy-bust operation.
A buy-bust operation has been proven to be an effective mode of apprehending drug

pushers. In this regard, police authorities are given a wide latitude in employing their
own ways of trapping or apprehending drug dealers in flagrante delicto. There is no
prescribed method on how the operation is to be conducted. As ruled in People v.
Garcia,15 the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of
the buy-bust operation as there is no text book method of conducting the same. As long
as the constitutional rights of the suspected drug dealer are not violated, the regularity
of the operation will always be upheld. Thus, in People v. Salazar,16 we ruled that "if
carried out with due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards, buy-bust operation
deserves judicial sanction."
Neither impressive is appellant’s contention that it is contrary to human nature to sell the
illegal stuff to a complete stranger. The law does not prescribe as an element of the
crime that the vendor and the vendee be familiar with each other. As aptly held by the
CA, peddlers of illicit drugs have been known with ever increasing casualness and
recklessness to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they
strangers or not.
While indeed there was little or no exchange between the poseur-buyer and the
appellant as it was the former and Umali who negotiated for the sale, he still cannot
escape liability because of his passive complicity therein. Simply stated, there was
conspiracy between appellant and Umali as can be deduced from the testimony of PO2
Tubbali, to wit:
Q. So when Teddy Umali received this One Hundred Peso-bill (P100.00), what
happened next, Mr. Witness?
A. Then he talked to Joseph Robelo alias "Kalbo" to give me a shabu, one
(1) plastic sachet, sir.
Q. Did Robelo comply?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. How did, this Joseph…
A. And then Joseph handed me one (1) plastic sachet, sir.17
Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime suggesting concerted action and unity of purpose among them.
In this case, the testimony of the poseur-buyer clearly shows a unity of mind between
appellant and Umali in selling the illegal drugs to him. Hence, applying the basic
principle in conspiracy that the "act of one is the act of all" appellant is guilty as a co-
conspirator and regardless of his participation, is liable as co-principal. Appellant’s
silence when the poseur-buyer was introduced to him as an interested buyer of shabu is
non-sequitur.
Appellant denies his complicity in the crime by invoking alibi and frame-up. He claims
that in the morning of March 26, 2004, he was at his mother’s house doing some repair
job and was just suddenly arrested and brought to the precinct where the arresting
officers demanded P10,000.00 for his liberty.
We, however, find that the RTC correctly rejected this defense of the appellant.
Time and again, we have stressed virtually to the point of repletion that alibi is one of
the weakest defenses that an accused can invoke because it is easy to fabricate. In
order to be given full faith and credit, an alibi must be clearly established and must not
leave any doubt as to its plausibility and veracity. Here, appellant’s claim that he was at
his mother’s house at the time of the incident cannot stand against the clear and
positive identification of him by the prosecution witnesses. As aptly held by the RTC,
"[t]he portrayal put forward by appellant remained uncorroborated. The testimonies of
the witnesses presented by the defense do not jibe with one another and that of the
claim of the appellant himself. x x x Lastly, the demand for money worth P10,000.00
remained unsubstantiated. x x x If indeed appellant is innocent he or his family who
were his witnesses should have filed a case of planting of evidence against the police
which is now punishable by life imprisonment."18
In fine, no error was committed by the RTC and the CA in giving credence to the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The general rule is that findings of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses deserve great weight, and are generally not
disturbed, on appeal. We find no reason to depart from such old-age rule as there are
no compelling reasons which would warrant the reversal of the verdict.
In his second assignment of error, appellant draws attention to the failure of the
apprehending officers to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the physical
inventory and photocopy of the seized items. He asserts that this failure casts doubt on
the validity of his arrest and the identity of the suspected shabu allegedly bought and
confiscated from him.
Appellant’s contention fails to convince us.

It should be noted that the alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 was not raised before the trial court but only for the first time on appeal. This
cannot be done. In People v. Sta. Maria,19 People v. Hernandez,20 and People v.
Lazaro, Jr.,21 among others, in which the very same issue was belatedly raised, we
ruled:
x x x 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.
Moreover, "non-compliance with Section 21 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal
or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is essential 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.’" 22 The
records reveal that at no instance did appellant hint a doubt on the integrity of the
seized items.
Undoubtedly, therefore, the suspected illegal drugs confiscated from appellant were the
very same substance presented and identified in court. This Court, thus, upholds the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the apprehending
police officers.
The Penalty
Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, illegal sale of shabu carries with it the
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P10 million
irrespective of the quantity and purity of the substance.
On the other hand, Section 11(3), Article II of the same law provides that illegal
possession of less than five grams of shabu is penalized with imprisonment of twelve
(12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years plus a fine ranging from P300,000.00 to
P400,000.00.
Appellant was found guilty of selling 0.019 gram of shabu and of possessing another
0.013 gram. Hence, applying the above provisions, we find the penalties imposed by the
RTC as affirmed by the CA to be in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed February 27, 2008 Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02711 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
13. G.R. No. 191193 November 14, 2012

vs.
GODOFREDO MARIANO y FELICIANO and ALLAN DORINGO y GUNAN, Accused-
Appellants.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Assailed in this appeal is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated 9 November 2009
in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03343 affirming the 5 March 2008 Decision2 of the Regional
Trial Court of Sorsogon City, Branch 65, finding appellants Godofredo Mariano Y
Feliciano (Godofredo) guilty of the crimes of illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession
of drug paraphernalia, and Allan Doringo y Gunan3 (Allan) guilty of the illegal sale of
shabu.
On the one hand, Godofredo was charged with the offenses of violation of Sections 5
and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in two (2) separate Informations, which read:
Criminal Case No. 04-706
That on or about the 17th day of October, 2004, at around 10:45 o’clock in the morning,
at Zone 2, Municipality of Bulan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of
law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, dispose,
distribute and/or give away for value two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride locally known as "Shabu", a prohibited drugs (sic),
containing 0.5680 gram to a poseur-buyer in exchange of One Thousand Peso Bill.4
Criminal Case No. 04-707
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession, custody and control one (1)
aluminum foil, one (1) aluminum tooter and one (1) lighter which are used and intended
to be used for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing
any dangerous drug into the body, without any authority of law. 5
Allan, on the other hand, was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of
law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell, deliver, dispose,
distribute and/or give away for value two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride locally known as "Shabu", a prohibited drugs (sic),
containing 0.1996 gram to a poseur-buyer in exchange of Six Hundred Peso Bill.6
The facts, according to the evidence for the prosecution, follow.
Acting on an informant’s tip, a buy-bust team was formed composed of SPO1 Reginal
Goñez (SPO1 Goñez), the team leader, with PO1 David Olleres, Jr. (PO1 Olleres) as
the poseur-buyer, and police back-ups, PO3 Virgilio Razo (PO3 Razo), and a certain
PO1 Pabrigas, and an unidentified member of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA).7 SPO1 Goñez produced the marked money consisting of one (1) One
Thousand Peso bill and six (6) One Hundred Peso bills. PO1 Olleres placed his initials
on the marked bills.8 On 17 October 2004, the team conducted a buy-bust operation in
the house of a certain Gerry Angustia located at Pier Uno, Zone 2, Bulan, Sorsogon.
PO1 Olleres, PO3 Razo and the asset proceeded to the target house and they
witnessed an ongoing pot session. They looked for "Galog" and they were introduced to
Godofredo. They asked Godofredo if they can "score." Godofredo immediately left the
house and went to a street at the back of the house. He returned carrying two (2)
sachets of shabu, which he handed to PO1 Ollares. In exchange, PO1 Olleres paid him
the One Thousand Peso marked bill. Allan also offered PO3 Razo two (2) more sachets
of shabu. The latter asked for the Six Hundred Peso marked bills from PO1 Olleres and
handed them to Allan as payment for the shabu. After these exchanges, they requested
appellants for an actual test of shabu. Godofredo provided them with a tooter and
aluminum foil. While they were testing said shabu, they declared an arrest.9 PO1
Olleres and PO3 Razo identified the appellants in open court.10
An Affidavit of Arrest was prepared and signed by PO1 Olleres and PO3 Razo. 11 PO1
Olleres also prepared a receipt of the property seized containing his and appellants’
signatures.12 The buy-bust team marked the plastic sachets containing shabu at the
crime scene and PO1 Olleres brought the seized items to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory.13 They also took photographs of the items confiscated and of
appellants.
In Chemistry Report No. D-174-04 dated 18 October 2004, Police Inspector Josephine
Macura Clemen, a forensic chemist, found that the specimen submitted to her was
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu.14
A different version of the incident was presented by the defense. Allan claimed that on
17 October 2004 at around 10:45 a.m., he was near the fence of Jessie Angustia’s
house waiting for a pumpboat coming from Masbate. He heard someone from inside the
house saying "tadihan ta ini" or "let’s taste it." Allan thought that there was food being
cooked so he went inside the house. He then saw shabu scattered on the table while a
certain Ludy Gubat (Ludy) was holding an aluminum foil. He also saw Godofredo and
PO1 Ollares. Allan tried to leave but Ludy poked a knife on the left side of his stomach
and held him in the collar. Ludy apparently threatened to stab Allan if the latter did not
go with him. Allan was brought by police officers to the 509th Mobile Group where he
was forced to sign a document without reading its contents. He was eventually
transferred to the PNP Station of Bulan, Sorsogon.15
Godofredo admitted that he was a drug user and that he went to the house of Jessie
Angustia to "score" shabu. Thereat, he saw Ludy and PO1 Olleres sniffing shabu. When
Allan arrived, Ludy cursed him and held him on his shoulders. Ludy pulled out a knife
and poked it at Allan. Thereafter, PO1 Olleres arrested Godofredo. He was boarded in a
tricycle and brought to Camp Crame.16
On 5 March 2008, the RTC rendered judgment finding appellants guilty. The dispositive
portion reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Godofredo Mariano y Feliciano and Allan

Doringo y Guban, having been found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of
Sections 5 and 12, Article II of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002), respectively, are hereby sentenced as follows:
a) In Criminal Case No. 04-706 (Violation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165)

accused Godofredo Mariano y Feliciano is sentenced to suffer the indivisible
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php500,000.00);
b) In Criminal Case No. 04-707 (Violation of Section 12, Article II, RA 9165)
accused Godofredo Mariano y Feliciano is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate
penalty of Six (6) months and one (1) day to four years and a fine of Ten
Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00);
c) In Criminal Case No. 04-708 (Violation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165)

accused Allan Doringo y Guban is sentenced to suffer the indivisible penalty of
LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php500,000.00).
The dangerous drugs as well as the drug paraphernalia subject matter of the three (3)
instant cases are hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government
(Sec. 20, RA 9165) to be disposed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of
the same Act.17
The trial court held that the prosecution was able to establish that the buy-bust
operation was successfully conducted when appellants were caught in flagrante delicto
selling drugs, resulting in their apprehension. The trial court dismissed the defense of
alibi and denial over the positive testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals on 9 November 2009 issued the challenged Decision
denying the appeal and affirming appellants’ conviction.
Failing to secure a favorable decision, appellants filed a notice of appeal before this
Court.18
On 22 March 2010, the Court required the parties to simultaneously file their
supplemental briefs.19 In two separate manifestations, both parties expressed their
intention not to file any supplemental brief since all the issues and arguments have
already been raised in their respective Briefs.20
Appellants maintain that the trial court erred in admitting the seized dangerous drugs
and drug paraphernalia as evidences against them. They assail the validity of their
warrantless arrest by stating that the arresting officers should have secured a warrant
because they were already in possession of pertinent information, such as the identity
of their target, upon which an application for a warrant could be based. Thus, the
alleged shabu obtained by virtue of an invalid warrantless arrest is inadmissible. In
addition, appellants question the validity of the inventory receipt in that the signing was
done without the assistance of counsel.
In its appellee’s brief, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) supports the convictions
of the appellants. It justifies the legality of the warrantless arrest of appellants as they
were caught in flagrante delicto. Moreover, the OSG avers that appellants are estopped
from questioning the legality of their arrest having raised them only on appeal.
We deny the appeal.
Appellants were charged and convicted of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the elements necessary for the
prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities 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.21
All these elements were duly established by the prosecution. Appellants were caught in
flagrante delicto selling shabu during a buy-bust operation conducted by the buy-bust
team. The poseur-buyer, PO1 Olleres, positively testified that the sale took place and
that appellants sold the shabu, thus:
A: At about 10:30 in the morning of that day our team leader instructed me to be with
them in conducting a buy bust operation.
Q: And who was with you at that time?
A: PO3 Razo and an asset.
Q: Where is the venue of the buy bust operation?

A: In the house of a certain Gerry Angustia (sic).
Q: At what time did you proceed to said place more or less?
A: About 10:00 o’clock in the morning, Ma’am, we proceeded to the house of Gerry
Angustia (sic). As per information of our asset, Galog was already on that house.
Q: Who is that Galog that you are referring to?
A: Godofredo Mariano.
Q: When you reached the place of Gerry Angustia (sic), what happened?
A: When we arrived at the scene there was an ongoing pot session but we did not
disturb them because the subject of our operation for the day is Godofredo Mariano and
when we arrived we asked who is Galog and he was introduced to us and so we asked
him if we can buy some items from him.
Q: The place where you proceeded to, Mr. Witness, is it a house?
A: It is just a small house and to our knowledge it was being occupied by Gerry
Angustia (sic).
Q: Mr. Witness, what happened when you were there and being introduced to Galog?
A: We talked with him and asked him if we can score and Godofredo Mariano left the
house and went to a street at the back of the house and when he came back he has
already with him two (2) sachets of shabu.
Q: Now, what happened when he returned with two (2) sachets of shabu?
A: Upon arrival of Godofredo Mariano with those two (2) sachets of shabu, we paid him
one thousand (Php1,000.00) pesos and right then and there Allan Doringo approached
us and offered to us to buy also two (2) sachets of shabu.
Q: Did you likewise buy the shabu offered by Allan Doringo?
A: Yes, Ma’am, Police Officer Razo gave Allan Doringo six hundred (Php600.00) pesos.
Q: Afterwards, what happened?
A: And right after the exchanged of items we requested the two (2) of them to have the
actual test of shabu and while they were testing the shabu we declared arrest.
Q: What do you mean when you say they were actually testing the shabu?
A: They tested the shabu by providing us the totter and aluminum foil and while we were
testing the said shabu we declared arrest.
Q: Is accused Godofredo Mariano present today in court?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Please identify him to us?
A: (Witness pointed to a man in a blue strife sweet shirt (sic) who identified himself as
Godofredo Mariano.)
Q: What about accused Allan Doringo (sic), is he present today in court?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: If you are required to identify him, will you be able to do so?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Please go down and identify him?
A: (Witness pointed to a man in black shirt and identified as Allan Doringo when
asked.)22
Simply put, Godofredo produced two (2) plastic sachets containing shabu and gave it to
PO1 Olleres in exchange for P1,000.00. Also, Allan had offered and given two (2) more
sachets containing shabu to PO3 Razo, who in turn, handed him P600.00. PO3 Razo
corroborated the account of PO1 Olleres, to wit:
Q: Mr. Witness, on October 17, 2004 at more or less 10:45 in the morning do you still
recall your whereabouts?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Will you please tell us where?
A: On October 17, 2004 at 10:45 a.m. from the camp we proceeded to the house of
Gerry Angustia (sic).
Q: And what was your purpose in going to the house of Gerry Angustia (sic)?
A: To conduct a buy bust operation.
Q: By the way, where is that house of Gerry Angustia (sic) located?

A: At pier Uno of Zone 2, Bulan, Sorsogon just in front of the Coast Guard.
Q: Okay, when you proceeded to the house of Gerry Angustia (sic) to conduct buy bust
operation, who was with you at that time?
A: PO3 David F. Olleres, Jr. and our asset.
Q: When you proceeded to the house of Gerry Angustia (sic) and when you arrived at
the house of Gerry Angustia (sic) what happened next?
A: While at the house of Gerry Angustia (sic), Godofredo Mariano offered to our asset to
taste the shabu and he also offered two (2) sachets of shabu worth Php1,000.00 to PO3
David Olleres, Jr. while this Allan Doringo persuaded us to buy also two (2) sachets of
shabu which was offered to PO3 Olleres who gave him also Php600.00 pesos.
Q: What did Olleres do when he was offered this shabu by Godofredo Mariano?
A: He received the two (2) sachets of shabu from Godofredo Mariano and gave
Godofredo Mariano the Php1,000.00 bill then PO3 David Olleres identified himself to
Godofredo Mariano.
Q: Now, before Olleres identified himself as a police officer, did you already buy the
shabu from Allan Doringo?
A: Godofredo Mariano sold his shabu to PO3 David Olleres while this Allan Doringo
insisted to me to buy his shabu for Php600.00 pesos.
Q: And what did you do when Allan Doringo offered you this shabu in the amount of
Php600.00.
A: I get Php600.00 from David Olleres and paid Allan Doringo the same amount after I
received from him the shabu.
Q: Then what happened afterwards?
A: Then after that we introduced ourselves as police officers and we brought them to the
camp for police investigation.
Q: Are accused Allan Doringo and Godofredo Mariano present today in court?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: If you are required to identify them, will you be able to do so?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Please point at them?
A: (The witness pointed to a man in yellow shirt who identified himself as Allan Doringo
when asked and also the witness pointed to a man in black shirt and identified himself
as Godofredo Mariano when asked.)23
The result of the laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methamphetamine

hydrochloride on the white crystalline substances inside the four (4) plastic sachets
confiscated from appellants. The marked money was presented in evidence. Thus, the
delivery of the illicit drug to PO1 Olleres and PO3 Razo and the receipt by appellants of
the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction.
Godofredo was further charged and convicted of illegal possession of drug

paraphernalia. The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus
and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II, Republic Act
No. 9165 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or
other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is
not authorized by law.24
The prosecution has convincingly established that Godofredo was in possession of drug
paraphernalia such as aluminum foil, aluminum tooter and lighter, all of which were
offered in evidence.25 The corresponding receipt and inventory of the seized shabu and
other drug paraphernalia were likewise presented in evidence.26 Police Superintendent
Leonidas Diaz Castillo attested to the veracity of the contents of these documents. 27
While both appellants admitted their presence in the scene of the crime, they both
denied the existence of a buy-bust operation.
The defense of denial, like alibi, has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can
just as easily be concocted. Denial 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. Bare denials of appellants cannot prevail
over the positive testimonies of the three police officers. Moreover, there is no evidence
of any improper motive on the part of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation to falsely testify against appellants.28
Appellants’ insistence on the illegality of their warrantless arrest equally lacks merit.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court allows a warrantless arrest under any of the
following circumstances:
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful – A 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 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 the instant case, the warrantless arrest was effected under the first mode or aptly
termed as in flagrante delicto. PO1 Olleres and PO3 Razo personally witnessed and
were in fact participants to the buy-bust operation. After laboratory examination, the
white crystalline substances placed inside the four (4) separate plastic sachets were
found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Under
these circumstances, it is beyond doubt that appellants were arrested in flagrante
delicto while committing a crime, in full view of the arresting team.
Anent the absence of counsel during the execution of an inventory receipt, we agree
with the conclusion of the appellate court that notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the
inventory receipt, the prosecution has sufficiently proven the guilt of appellants, thus:
Admittedly, it is settled that the signature of the accused in the "Receipt of Property
Seized" is inadmissible in evidence if it was obtained without the assistance of counsel.
The signature of the accused on such a receipt is a declaration against his interest and
a tacit admission of the crime charged. However, while it is true that appellants signed
receipt of the property seized unassisted by counsel, this only renders inadmissible the
receipt itself.1âwphi1
In fact, in the case at bar, the evidentiary value of the Receipt of Property Seized is
irrelevant in light of the ample evidence proving appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The prosecution was able to prove that a valid buy-bust operation was conducted
to entrap appellants. The testimony of the poseur-buyer clearly established that the sale
of shabu by appellant was consummated. The corpus delicti, which is the shabu, was
presented in court and confirmed by the other members of the buy-bust team. They
acknowledged that they were the same drugs placed in four (4) plastic sachets seized
from appellants.29
In fine, it has been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellants sold
shabu. Under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the penalty of life
imprisonment to death and fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P1,000,000.00 shall be
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved. Hence, the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly
imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. As to Godofredo
who was further convicted of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, Section 12,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 imposes the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six
(6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand
pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) upon any person, who unless
authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment,
instrument, apparatus and any other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking,
consuming, administering, injecting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body.
Based on the foregoing rules, we also affirm the imposition of penalties by the trial
court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 9 November 2009 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03343 which, in turn, affirmed the Decision dated 5
March 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Sorsogon City, in Criminal Cases
Nos. 04-706, 04-707, and 04-708, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
14. G.R. No. 188345 December 10, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appelle,

vs.
CATALINO DULAY y CADIENTE, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This is an appeal of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No.
02342 dated April 18, 2008, which affirmed the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Makati finding accused-appellant Catalino Dulay y Cadiente guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Two Informations were filed against accused-appellant, charging him with violations of
Section 5 (Criminal Case No. 03-3799) and Section 15 (Criminal Case No. 03-4000),
respectively, of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Information charging accused-
appellant of violation of Section 5 states:
That on or about the 23rd day of September, 2003, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without the necessary license or prescription and without being authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give
awayP100.00 worth of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) weighing zero point
zero two (0.02) gram and zero point zero two (0.02) gram, a dangerous drug. 3
On arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge in Criminal Case

No. 03-3799, but pleaded guilty to the charge of drug use in Criminal Case No. 03-4000.
As stated in the Pre-Trial Order, the parties stipulated:
1. That these cases were investigated by PO3 Conrado Mapili;
2. That after the investigation by PO3 Conrado Mapili, he prepared the Final
Investigation Report;
3. That the Drug Enforcement Unit [DEU] through SPO4 Arsenio Mangulabnan
made a Request for Laboratory Examination;
4. That the PNP Crime Laboratory through Police Inspector Karen Palacios
conducted an examination on the specimen submitted;
5. That [the] Physical Science Report was issued by the PNP Crime Laboratory
Office detailing the findings of the Forensic Chemist; and
6. The qualification of the Forensic Chemist.4
The prosecution presented three witnesses: (1) Police Officer (PO) 1 Dominador
Robles, who was the team leader of the buy-bust operation; (2) PO1 Jose Guadamor of
the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC), who was the poseur-buyer; and (3) PO1
Francisco Barbosa, also from the MADAC, who was a back-up. Culled from their
testimonies, the trial court summarized the facts into the following narrative:
A buy-bust operation was conducted against accused Catalino Dulay on September 23,
2003 at around 5:45 pm due to a report given by an informant to Bgy. Capt. Del Prado
at the office of MADAC Cluster 3. The report was about the illegal drug-selling activity of
the accused Catalino Dulay at Mabini Street, Barangay Poblacion Makati City. After
receiving said report, Brgy. Capt. Del Prado coordinated with the Makati Drug
Enforcement Unit (DEU). The DEU sent PO1 Dominador Robles to the Barangay Hall of
Barangay Sta. Cruz. PO1 Robles conducted a briefing of the buy-bust team. Jose
Guadamor was designated as the poseur buyer. PO1 Robles as team leader, provided
Guadamor with the two hundred pesos buy bust money. PO1 Robles coordinated the
operation with the PDEA. After the briefing the buy-bust team accompanied by the
informant proceeded to the place of operation after the briefing. The poseur buyer and
the informant saw alias "Lino" standing along Mabini Street, Brgy. Poblacion, Makati
City. The poseur buyer and the informant approached the accused. The informant
introduced the poseur buyer to alias "Lino", "Ito si Jojo, nangangailangan ng shabu."
(TSN dated 3/3/05, p. 4). The accused asked the poseur buyer how much is he going to
buy. The poseur buyer replied, "Tapatan mo itong dos ko." (TSN dated 3/3/05, p. 14).
The poseur buyer handed to the accused the two hundred pesos buy bust money and
the accused drew from his right pocket, two plastic sachets and handed it to the poseur
buyer. The poseur buyer took the two plastic sachets and gave the prearranged signal
by lighting a cigarette. PO1 Robles and Barbosa rushed to the place of the transaction.
They introduced themselves as narcotic operatives. They arrested alas "Lino" (TSN
dated 3/3/05, pp. 16-17). It was PO1 Robles who informed the accused of his
constitutional rights. Jose Guadamor, the poseur buyer marked the sachets of shabu
with "CDC" the initials of the accused at the place of operation (TSN dated 3/3/05, p.
18). After the arrest, the accused was brought to the DEU where a complaint was filed
against him. Thereafter, the accused was brought to Fort Bonifacio, Taguig for drug test
of the accused and laboratory examination of the subject of sale."5
Physical Science Report No. D-1174-03S,6 prepared and submitted by P/Insp. Karen
Palacios, the Philippine National Police (PNP) forensic analyst who examined the
specimens, showed that the seized specimens tested positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride.
The defense presented the accused-appellant as its lone witness. The Court of Appeals
condensed his testimony in this wise:
In defense, accused Catalino Dulay denied having sold shabu when he was arrested.
He claimed that on September 23, 2003, at about 4:30 to 5:30 [p.m.], he was sleeping
when his wife woke him up because someone was knocking at the door. He then went
to the door and asked those knocking who they were and what was their purpose. Two
of the three men asked the accused if he was Allan, but receiving a negative answer,
the men immediately held his hands, dragged him out of the house and boarded him
into a Toyota Revo. Accused was brought first to the barangay headquarters where he
was asked from whom he was getting shabu, and then to Drug Enforcement Unit where
he was investigated and shown two (2) plastic sachets. Accused also claimed that his
money amounting to P200.00 in two one-peso bills was taken from his wallet and these
same two-peso bills were the ones marked as "C-3" at the barangay headquarters. He
further claimed that he was framed-up by MADAC operatives Rogelio Milan and Kuntil
Domingo, an asset of the MADAC, with whom he quarreled three days before his
arrest.7
On June 16, 2006, the Regional Trial Court of Makati City rendered its Decision on the
two charges as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 03-3799 the accused CATALINO DULAY y CADIENTE alias
"Lino" is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Art.
II, RA 9165 and sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of P500,000.00. The period during which the accused was detained shall be considered
in his favor pursuant to existing rules.
2. In Criminal Case No. 03-4000, the accused having pleaded guilty to the charge of
violation of Section 15, Art. II, RA 9165, is sentenced 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 of RA 9165.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) the two pieces of plastic sachets of shabu with a combined weight of
0.04 gram subject matter of Criminal Case No. 03-3799 for said agency’s appropriate
disposition.8
Accused-appellant elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Notice of

Appeal.9 On April 18, 2008, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision
affirming the convictions.
Accused-appellant instituted the present recourse through a Notice of Appeal. 10 Both

plaintiff-appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General,11 and the accused-
appellant12 manifested that they were dispensing with the filing of a Supplemental Brief,
as they had exhaustively argued the issues in their respective briefs before the Court of
Appeals.
In the above-mentioned brief of the accused-appellant, he submitted a lone assignment

of error:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF

THE CRIME CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE
PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.13
Accused-appellant claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt on account of the failure of PO1 Barbosa to identify him at the trial,
and the unreliability of the testimonies of PO1 Robles and PO1 Barbosa on account of
their distance of ten to fifteen meters from the place where the alleged transaction took
place. Accused-appellant likewise point out the failure of the prosecution to present the
informant to corroborate the testimonies of the police officers.
Accused-appellant, however, did not have much to say about the testimony of the
poseur-buyer himself, PO1 Guadamor, who was able to give a complete account of the
transaction, from his introduction as a buyer to the accused-appellant by the informant,
his handing to the accused-appellant of the payment for the two plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance, which the latter drew from his pocket and
handed to him, and up to the eventual arrest of the accused-appellant and the marking
of the confiscated items.14
It is significant to reiterate at this point that it is the trial court which is deemed to be in a
better position to decide the question of credibility of PO1 Guadamor, as well as those
of the other witnesses, since it had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ manner of
testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs and the scant or full realization of their
oath.15 The trial court found PO1 Guadamor to be credible, and our examination of his
testimony does not give us any reason to find otherwise. As we have often repeated,
the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses is entitled to the highest
respect absent a showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. 16
Whatever defect that may have been caused by the failure of PO1 Barbosa to identify
the accused-appellant in court was cured by the testimony of accused-appellant himself
that PO1 Barbosa was part of the arresting team:
ATTY. YU
Did you recognize any of the three arresting officer at that time?
WITNESS
Yes, ma’am.
ATTY. YU
Who are they?
WITNESS
One of them is a tricycle driver who is also a MADAC operative.
ATTY. YU
What about the other two?
WITNESS
Francisco Barbosa, Jose Guadamor, and Rogelio Milan.17
The necessity of asking the witness to identify the accused in court is for the purpose of
being able to pinpoint said accused to be the very same person referred to in the
testimony. As regards the testimony of PO1 Barbosa, it has to be established that
accused-appellant was the very same person that was arrested by the team which
includes PO1 Barbosa at around 5:20 p.m. on September 23, 2003. Having himself
affirmed his own arrest at the hands of the group of PO1 Barbosa on the same date and
time, accused-appellant cannot now assert that he was not the person referred to in
PO1 Barbosa’s testimony.
Furthermore, accused-appellant was, in fact, positively identified in court by PO1 Robles

and the poseur-buyer himself, PO1 Guadamor. Accused-appellant’s persistent assertion
that PO1 Robles and PO1 Barbosa were too far at ten to fifteen meters away from the
scene of the alleged transaction does not disprove their ability to positively identify
accusedappellant, as they have testified that they eventually went closer to the scene
when PO1 Guadamor gave the signal. Neither was the proximity of PO1 Robles and
PO1 Barbosa relevant to prove the details of the transaction since their account was
merely to corroborate the already convincing testimony of PO1 Guadamor.
Accused-appellant further points out that the prosecution failed to present the informant
in court, alleging that the same was necessary to corroborate the testimony of PO1
Guadamor, since it was only the informant and PO1 Guadamor who witnessed the
actual transaction.
We disagree. It is settled that the identity or testimony of the informant is not

indispensable in drugs cases, since his testimony would only corroborate that of the
poseur-buyer.18 Also, it is undeniably established in jurisprudence that:
We have repeatedly held that it is up to the prosecution to determine who should be

presented as witnesses on the basis of its own assessment of their necessity. After all,
the testimony of a single witness, if trustworthy and reliable, or if credible and positive,
would be sufficient to support a conviction. Moreover, in determining values and
credibility of evidence, witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered.19 (Citations
omitted.)
Furthermore, informants are often not presented in court in order to preserve their cover
and continue to be of service as such. Their lives may also be placed in danger if they
testify in court. Thus, in People v. Ho Chua,20 we held:
The presentation of an informant is not a requisite in the prosecution of drug cases.

In People v. Nicolas, the Court ruled that "[p]olice authorities rarely, if ever, remove the
cloak of confidentiality with which they surround their poseur-buyers and informers since
their usefulness will be over the moment they are presented in court. Moreover, drug
dealers do not look kindly upon squealers and informants. It is understandable why, as
much as permitted, their identities are kept secret." In any event, the testimony of the
informant would be merely corroborative. (Citations omitted.)
For the crime of use of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 03- 4000, the accused-
appellant, who pleaded guilty to this offense, was sentenced to undergo rehabilitation
for at least six months in a government rehabilitation center under the auspices of the
Bureau of Correction. This is proper, pursuant to Section 15, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, which provides:
SEC. 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. – A 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.1âwphi1
In Criminal Case No. 03-3799, for the crime of illegal sale of a dangerous drug, the trial
court imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. Accused-
appellant respectfully pleads21 to this Court to reduce this penalty on account of the very
small quantity involved in the case, which was only 0.04 gram of methylamphetamine
hydrochloride. As much as this Court desires to temper justice with mercy whenever
warranted by the circumstances of the case, we are restrained by the plain and
unambiguous text of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, which provides:
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
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 added.)
We are therefore constrained to affirm the penalty imposed by the trial court in toto.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02342
dated April 18, 2008, which affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati
finding accused-appellant Catalino Dulay y Cadiente guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is herebyAFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
15. G.R. No. 198701 December 10, 2012

vs.
JAYSON ClJRILLAN HAMBORA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
REYES, J.:
This is an appeal filed by Jayson C. Hambora (Hambora) from the Decision 1 dated July
29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CRHC No. 00756-MIN. The CA
affirmed the Decision2 dated October 1, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Butuan City, Branch 4, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section
5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.3
The accusatory portion of the Information reads as follows:
That on or about 12:05 o’clock in the afternoon of February 13, 2004 at Montilla Street,
Butuan City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, deliver to a poseur-buyer for a consideration of FOUR HUNDRED
([P]400.00) PESOS, Philippine Currency, one (1) sachet of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, weighing a total of zero point zero seven four
three (0.0743) grams (sic), which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165)4
When arraigned, he entered a plea of "not guilty." After pre-trial, trial on the merits
ensued.
The facts, according to the prosecution are, as follows:
That on February 13, 2004, at about 12:05 noon, a group of police officers of the
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the PNP were at Montilla St.,
Butuan City, to conduct [a] buy-bust operation.
The designated place of operation was reportedly a lair of persons engaged in illegal
drug trade. This information was gathered by a discreet surveillance conducted by the
(CIDG) PNP.
Prior to the buy-bust, a police surveillance was conducted to determine and verify
whether rampant illegal drug trade was conducted in the area. When (sic) the police
were convinced that [the] information was accurate, hence, the buy-bust operation.
The police team was divided into two (2) groups, Team A was composed of Police
Officers Palabrica, Yaoyao and a confidential asset, while Team B, composed by (sic)
PO1 Jessie Rama, Lasco and Salubre.
In the buy-bust operation, to act as poseur-buyer was Policeman Andrew Lasco who will
use a buy-bust money of four hundred pesos ([P]400.00) in one hundred peso
denomination[s]. (Exh. "A" to "A-4")
That, when both teams arrived at the designated place at Montilla Blvd., in front of a
store identified as Francing Store, members of each team positioned themselves at their
assigned places, while poseur-buyer (Lasco) posted himself at the side of the store,
pretending to be a customer of illegal drugs.
After a while, somebody approached Lasco which turns (sic) out to be the accused, who
asked (Lasco) whether he wants (sic) to buy a shabu.
With an affirmative answer and after a meeting of the minds, accused gave a sachet of
shabu to Lasco in exchange of Four Hundred Pesos ([P]400.00).
Upon consummation of the sale Lasco identified himself as a police officer, [then]
arrested accused. His two (2) other companions, Police Officers Rama and Salubre,
upon hearing the utterance of Lasco, saying he was a police officer, assisted Lasco.
After informing accused why he was arrested, accused was brought to the CIDG Office
for further investigation. Furthermore, accused was physically searched and found were
the marked monies.
The seized sachet of shabu was marked with the initials JAR, which stands for Jessie,
Andrew and Raul.
Eventually, the sachet of shabu was submitted for laboratory examination at the PNP
Crime Laboratory and was examined by PSI Cramwell Banogon, the Forensic Chemical
Officer, who submitted a Laboratory Report No. D-026-04 (Exh. "F") confirming that the
submitted specimen is a prohibited drug.5
On the other hand, the version of the defense states, as follows:
[O]n February 13, 2004, at 12:00 o’clock noon, he was at his residence at Purok 9,
Langihan Road, Butuan City.
That after eating, he went to Montilla St., to run an errand of a Merlinda to collect a debt.
That this Merlinda is engaged in a small-time lending business.
That he was to see a certain Gigi. He was unable to collect at that time and was told [to]
come back sometime. While going home, he was arrested by a certain Police Officer
Lasco, and was told that he was selling prohibited drug. After the arrest, he was
subjected to a physical search and nothing was found on him.
That he requested of (sic) the presence of barangay officials during the search but his
pleas went unheeded.
That the police proceeded with the search and after he was boarded on a motorcycle
and brought to the CIDG office.
That he was interrogated of the matter of selling prohibited drugs in the area, and was
specifically asked if he knows anybody selling illegal drugs. He answered that he has
NO information about the matter.
Eventually, he was charged of this case. That he vehemently denied selling prohibited
drugs.
Upon cross-examination, he admitted it was the first time that Merlinda asked him to
collect a debt and he does not know the full name of the person [to] whom the debt is
due.6
On October 1, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision7 convicting Hambora for illegal sale
of shabu pursuant to Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 as it gave full credence to the
testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation vis-á-
vis Hambora’s denial of the charge against him. The RTC decreed in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused JAYSON CURILLAN HAMBORA is

hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act 9165, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]500,000.00), without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Accused shall serve his sentence at the Davao Prison and Penal Farm at Braulio E.
Dujali, Davao del Norte and shall be credited in the service thereof with his preventive
imprisonment conformably with Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The one (1) sachet of shabu marked JAR-1 (Exh. "G" and "G-1") is hereby ordered
confiscated in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.8
On appeal, the CA upheld the findings of the RTC. It brushed aside Hambora’s vain
assertion that he was framed up by the police operatives. The CA explained that the
minor irregularities in the testimonies of the police officers who apprehended the
appellant were not fatal, as these even added premium to their credibility as prosecution
witnesses. The CA further stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165
will not render the arrest illegal or the items confiscated from Hambora inadmissible as
long as the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. Thus, the CA disposed
the appeal:
WHEREFORE, premises foregoing, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the
assailed Decision dated October 1, 2009 in Criminal Case No. 10444 is AFFIRMED in
toto.9
Our Ruling
The CA decision is affirmed.

The prosecution competently and convincingly established the essential elements for
illegal sale of shabu, to wit: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the
sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for
the thing. What is material in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti as evidence.10
A thorough examination of the records herein confirms the presence of all these
elements, viz: (1) PO2 Lasco acted as poseur-buyer to entrap persons suspected of
selling shabu during a legitimate buy-bust operation; (2) Hambora approached PO2
Lasco and asked if the latter wanted to buy shabu from him; (3) PO2 Lasco, as poseur-
buyer, tendered four (4) marked P100.00 bills to Hambora; and (3) Hambora, in return,
handed one (1) sachet of shabu to PO2 Lasco. The chemistry report conducted on the
specimen resulted in shabu with a total weight of 0.0743 gram. Thus, no cogent reason
exists to disturb the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA.
The Court further accords full credit to the positive and credible testimonies of the police
officers pointing to Hambora as the seller of the confiscated shabu, and rejects the
latter’s version of the events which eventually led to his apprehension in line with the
"objective test"11 which presumes the regularity in the performance of duty of the
apprehending police officers during the conduct of buy-bust operations. As held
in People v. De la Cruz:12
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." 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."13 (Citations omitted)
In the instant case, the apprehending police officers positively identified Hambora who
was caught inflagrante delicto selling 0.0743 gram of shabu to PO2 Lasco who stood at
his assigned post. PO2 Lasco testified in court about their surveillance operations along
Montilla St., Butuan City where several exchanges of shabu were apparently prevalent.
In People v. Amarillo, it was held that:
As to the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, we hold, as we have done
time and again, that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses,
when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great
respect, if not conclusive effect" and 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.14
Hambora’s asseveration that he was merely framed up is self-serving and
uncorroborated, and must fail in light of the straightforward and positive testimonies of
PO2 Lasco and his team of police officers identifying him as the seller of the shabu.
Since he was caught in flagrante delicto of illegally selling shabu, Hambora is liable for
violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. As aptly discussed by the CA, "the alleged
inconsistencies emphasized by (Hambora) are very trivial and does not in any way
affect the core of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses"15 that an illegal sale
of shabu transpired between him and PO2 Lasco. Well-settled is the rule that
"discrepancies referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central
fact of the crime, do not impair [the witnesses’] credibility nor do they overcome the
presumption that the arresting officers have regularly performed their official duties". 16
Hambora likewise questions the chain of custody of the shabu confiscated in view of
police officers’ failure to comply with the statutory guidelines laid down in Section 21 of
R.A. 9165.17 We reject Hambora’s claim and agree with the CA’s pronouncement on the
matter.1âwphi1
Time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that substantial compliance with
the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the
seized drug items inadmissible.18 In the instant case, although the police officers did not
strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, their
noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from Hambora
as the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the
circumstances of the case.
The CA aptly discussed as follows:
[W]hile admittedly Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was not complied [with] insofar as the
inventory and the presence of key persons were concerned, the prosecution has
sufficiently established that a buy-bust operation was in fact conducted, and that the
one (1) sachet subject of the sale which, after examination was found to be "shabu,"
was positively identified as the one also presented in court. Hence, the integrity of the
subject illegal drug properly preserved.19
Lastly, this Court affirms the penalties imposed as they are well within the ranges
provided by law. Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes a penalty of life
imprisonment to death20 and a fine ranging fromP500,000.00 to Pl0,000,000.00 for the
sale of any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity or purity involved.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the Decision dated July 29,
2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00756-MIN is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
16

Conviction 2014

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conviction 2014

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONVICTION

1. PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES vs. GLENN SALVADOR and DORY ANN

G.R. No. 190621 February 10, 2014

Ground: Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165

1. Denial and frame-up

2. Non-compliance with Section 21,

Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered

G.R. No. 205227 April 7, 2014

Ground: violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9 l 65

Defense: Non presentation of the investigator, NON COMPLIANCE OF CHAIN OF

Time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that substantial compliance

Ground: Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165

4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GIL SALVIDAR , G.R. No.

Ground: Violation of Section 11, Art. II, RA 9165

Defense: Breach of Chain of Custody

5. G.R. No. 203984 June 18, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.MEDARIO CALANTIAO y

Defense:Illegal search, inadmissible as evidence

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DENNIS E.

Violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the

Tancico was apprehended due to an information given by a member of a Barangay

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VIVIAN BULOTANO y

We affirm the conviction of the defendant for illegal sale of shabu.

Despite noncompliance with the requirements in Section 21, there is no showing of a

8. G.R. No. 188707 July 30, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.MANUELITA AMPATUAN y

Defense: Absence of Marked Money, breach of chain of custody.

Elements of Illegal Sale of Shabu Duly Established

9. G.R. No. 199874 July 23, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PETER FANG y GAMBOA

violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

Appellant had been charged following a "buy-bust" operation. When arraigned,

10. G.R. No. 200987 August 20, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.RONALDO BAYAN y

Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

Appellant was caught in flagrante delictoselling shabuthrough a buy-bust operation

The result of the laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine

PEOPLE OF THE PIDLIPPINES, Plaintiff/Appellee, vs.MARISSA

violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive

Defense: Frame up. No valid buy-bust operation

The Presentation of the Poseur-Buyer is not Indispensable.

There was no Evidence of Denial and Frame-up.

Here, aside from appellant’s self-serving testimony, her claim of frame-up is

12. G.R. No. 206912 September 10, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DEMOSTHENES

By virtue of Search Warrant issued by the court a quo against accused[-appellant], a

Defense: Defense of denial and Failure to observe unbroken chain of custody

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DATSGANDAWALI y GAPAS

Violation of Section Article II of RA 9165

The essential requirements for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous

Defense: Defense of extortion and/or frame-up.

14. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESvs.RUPER POSING, G.R. No.

Defense, Break on Chain of Custody

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. REYNALDO "ANDY" SOMOZA

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received confidential information that

Defense:Irregularity of the inventory, Broken Chain of Custody

Accused-appellant is clutching at straws in insisting on the following: non-presentation

16. G.R. No. 193661 August 14, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.RYAN BLANCO Y SANGKULA,

Ground: illegal sale and possession of shabu or methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a

Defense: Invalid Buy bust operation, non presentation of confidential informant.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.