1. G.R. No.

217026

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
LAWRENCE GAJO y BUENAFE and RICO GAJO y BUENAFE, Accused-Appellants

FACTS:

On March 23, 2007, at about 11:05 p.m., PO3 Justo, PO1 Sangahin, and PO1 San Pedro were on duty at
the Police Station. While thereat, they planned to conduct a buy-bust operation against Lawrence based on the
13

details given by a civilian informant. PO3 Justo wrote his initials "GMJ" into two ₱100.00 bills, and the police
14

agreed that if PO1 Justo, as poseur buyer, successfully bought shabu during the buy-bust, he would remove his
cap. At about 11:20 p.m. of even date, PO3 Justo, PO1 Sangahin and PO1 San Pedro arrived at their target area.
P03 Justo immediately alighted from the vehicle and proceeded to the house of Lawrence. He saw Lawrence
standing near a lamp post and approached him. P03 Justo told Lawrence, "pakuha ng dos," handing him
16

(Lawrence) ₱200.00. Lawrence took the money, and replied, "sandali lang, asa bahay." And thereafter, he entered
17

his house. After a while, a man. who the police later on identified as Rico. came out of Lawrence's house and
18

handed PO3 Justo a small plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. Consequently, PO3 Justo removed his cap,
the police's pre-arranged signal that PO3 Justo already bought shabu. When approached by POI Sai1 Pedro, P03
Justo told him that Lawrence received the marked money and went inside his (Lawrence's) house. PO3 Justo 20

thereafter held Rico's am1 and informed him of his constitutional rights. He also directed Rico to bring out the
contents of his pocket Upon doing so, PO3 Justo saw from Rico's pocket two plastic sachets suspected to
contain shabu. Meanwhile POJ San Pedro and PO1 Sangahin entered the house of Lawrence. There, PO 1 San
21 22

Pedro recovered the marked money and one plastic sachet of suspected shabufrom Lawrence. In the Police
23

Station, P03 Justo placed the markings GMJ, GMJ-1, and GMJ-2 on the three sachets he recovered from Rico. He
also marked and placed his initials, GMJ-3, on the plastic sachet that PO1 San Pedro recovered from
24

Lawrence. PO3 Justo mm-ked all the seized items in the presence of PO1 San Pedro and PO1 Sangahin.
25

According to PO1 San Pedro, at the time of the marking, '"[the accused] was already inside the jail." In addition,
PO3 Justo testified that he marked the plastic sachet at the Police Station because there was already a commotion
at the place of the incident. However, PO 1 San Pedro denied that there was any commotion immediately after the
27

buy-bust. In the Police Station, PO1 San Pedro made an inventory of the recovered items. This inventory was the
same Initial Laboratory Report"' submitted to the Crime L'1lboratory. PO3 Justo and PO1 San Pedro confirmed that
29

they brought the seized items to the Crime Laboratory. However, based on the Request for Laboratory
30

Examination, it was a ce1tain PO2 Cruz w1hbmitted them to the Crime Laboratory Service of Tikling, Taytay, Rizal.
31

For its part, the defense presented Lawrence and Rico, who denied the allegations against them. They claimed that
at around 11:00 p.m., Rico was inside his room at the house he had been living with his family, including his brother,
Lawrence, and their mother. Suddenly, he heard noise from outside. Upon going out of his room, he saw five armed
32

persons. Later, he learned that these men were Police Officers Arellano, San Pedro, Justo, Benito and Moreno.
Thereafter, SPO1 Arellano poked a gun at and asked Rico his name. He also informed the latter that they were
looking for Bubot, a neighbor of Rico. In reply, Rico told SPO1 Arellano that Bubot did not reside at their (Rico)
house. After insisting that Bubot entered Rico's house, PO1 San Pedro frisked Rico, and eventually, directed him to
sit down. The police then searched the house. Meanwhile, Lawrence who was then sleeping, also heard noise and
came out of his room. He saw five men in civilian clothes inside their house. Eventually, he learned that these men
were policemen. Lawrence saw that the police were accusing Rico that he was Bubot. He attempted to stop them
from arresting Rico. In turn, the police frisked Lawrence and asked him to sit beside Rico. After searching Rico's
house. the policemen boarded Lawrence and Rico to their (police) vehicle and brought them to the Police
Station. Rico testified that SPO1 Arellano asked ₱20,000.00 from him but he replied that he did not have any
35

money. According to the RTC. the act of Lawrence of accepting two ₱100.00 hills from PO3 Justo and Rico's
36

turning over one plastic sachet of shabu to PO3 Justo proved that there was conspiracy between them to sell drugs.
Moreover, PO1 San Pedro recovered one plastic sachet of shahu from Lawrence while PO3 Justo recovered two
more plastic sachets of shabu from Rico. As such, the RTC decreed that Lawrence and Rico were guilty of illegal
possession of shabu as they failed to prove that they were legally authorized to possess or use the same. The RTC
ruled that Rico and Lawrence were guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. It sentenced them to life
imprisonment, and ordered them to pay a ₱500.000.00 fine. It also found them guilty of violating Section 11, Article II
of RA 9165, imposing upon them the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and one day imprisonment, as minimum, to
15 years and one day, as maximum, and ordering them to pay a ₱300,000.00 fine each. The CA affirmed the RTC
Joint Decision. It ruled that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs had been established as the prosecution
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt because of non-
observance of the chain of custody requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 in the case.

HELD:

YES. In this case, Lawrence and Rico were indicted for illegal sale and possession of shabu. Thus, it is
necessary for the prosecution to establish with moral certainty the elements of these offenses. Specifically, for the
case of illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove: 1) the identity of the buyer and the seller as well as the
object and consideration of the sale; and, 2) the delivery and payment of the object sold. As regards illegal
possession of shabu, it is necessary to establish: 1) the possession of the accused of an identified prohibited drug;
2) such possession was not legally authorized; and. 3) the accused freely and consciously possessed it. At the
same time, to convict Lawrence and Rico, it is primordial that the corpus delicti or the confiscated illegal drugs had
been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the same illegal drugs possessed and sold by the accused
must be the same ones offered in court. As such, the required unbroken chain of custody under Section 21, Article II
of RA 9165 above-quoted comes into play to ensure that no unnecessary doubt is created on the identity of the
seized illegal drugs. Generally, there are four links in said chain of custody: 1)the seizure and marking, if
39

practicable, of the illegal drug confiscated from the accused by the apprehending officer; 2) the turnover of the
seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; 3) the turnover by the investigating officer of said
item to the forensic chemist 'for examination; and, 4) the turnover and submission thereof from forensic chemist to
the court. In this case, however, the apprehending officer did not make a proper marking of the seized shabu.PO3
Justo confirmed that he marked the seized items upon arrival at the Police Station. He attested that he did not
immediately mark the three sachets of shabu from Rico and the one sachet recovered by PO1 San Pedro from
Lawrence as there was a1ready a commotion at the place of incident. Since there was no commotion that transpired
after the seizure of shabu, there was nothing that would prevent PO3 Justo from marking the shabu immediately
after confiscation. Moreover, PO3 Justo marked it without the presence of Lawrence and Rico. As testified by PO3
Justo himself he marked the confiscated shabu in the presence of PO1 Sangahin and PO1 San Pedro. And, PO1 45

San Pedro declared that "[the accused] was already inside the jail" when PO3 Justo marked the recovered
46

items.Indeed, the failure to immediately mark the shabu after confiscation, and for marking it without the presence of
the accused constituted clear gaps in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs. In addition, the second link
was not complied with here. To reiterate, to establish an unbroken chain of custody, every person who touched the
seized illegal drug must describe how and from whom it was received; its condition upon receipt, including its
condition upon delivery to the next link in the chain.Here, PO3 Justo supposedly turned over the
confiscated shabu to Police Chief Inspector Anastacio B. Benzon (PC/Insp. Benzon), the investigating officer.
Nevertheless, the prosecution did not present PC/Insp. Benzon to testify on the matter. Such non-presentation
undeniably constitutes another gap in the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs. Similarly, the third link in
the chain of custody was also infirm. This is because the Request for Laboratory Examination indicated a certain
PO2 Cruz as the person who delivered the specimens to the crime laboratory for examination. Nevertheless, like in
the case of PC/Insp. Benzon. the prosecution did not present PO2 Cruz to testify on his receipt of the
seized shabu. Evidently, this non-presentation of a necessary witness constituted another gap in the chain of
custody.
2. G.R. No. 218208

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
BRIAN VILLAHERMOSO, Accused-Appellant

FACTS:

October 12, 2006, at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, PCI Fermin Armendarez III called a conference
and formed a buy-bust team to counter the selling of shabu by one Brian Villahermoso in Sitio Pailob, Urgeloo St.,
Barangay Sambag II, Cebu City. The designated poseur-buyer was PO2 Villaester. The buy-bust was done with
prior coordination with the PDEA (Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency). Upon dispatch at the scene, the civilian
informant contacted Brian and went with the latter to a small house where PO2 Villaester was waiting. The informant
introduced PO2 Villaester as an interested buyer of ₱32,000.00 worth of shabu. PO2 Villaester then exhibited a
bundle of money purporting to be ₱32,000.00 but was in truth just boodle money wrapped with a genuine 1,000-
peso bill bearing PO2 Villaester's signature. Brian handed to PO2 Villaester two big sachets of shabu after seeing
the money. PO2 Villaester scratched his head as a signal for other team members, who were waiting at a distance,
that the buying and selling had been consummated. PO2 Villaester then introduced himself as a police officer,
1âwphi1

apprised Brian of the latter's violation as well as of his constitutional rights, and effected the arrest through the
assistance of the team. Brian was handcuffed and was brought to the office of 7RCIDU together with the
seized shabu. The arrest was recorded in a police blotter. The two sachets of shabu were then marked as "BV-01"
and "BV- 02" by team member SPO 1 Noel Triste. The marked sachets of shabu were then submitted to the crime
laboratory for examination. SPO1 Noel Triste also delivered the laboratory request signed by the Regional Chief of
7RCIDU, Police Senior Superintendent (DSC) Jose Jorge Elizalde Corpuz. Chemistry Report No. D-1632-2006
which was completed at 1400H (or 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon) on October 13, 2004 yielded that the two sachets
submitted for examination were indeed positive for Methamp[h]etamine Hydrochloride or shabu. Appellant claimed
5

that the charge against him was fabricated; that he was in the area to collect payment for two kilos of mango from a
certain Litlit Canupil; that he met seven unidentified persons, four of which asked him if he was Jam Juning; that
they introduced themselves as policemen; that they conducted a body search on him; and that they took his money
worth ₱900.00. Appellant's neighbor, Alex Esconas, testified in court that he saw the appellant being held by
6

unidentified persons; that when he approached them, he was told not to intervene; and that he saw the appellant
board a brown automobile. The RTC rendered Judgment finding the appellant guilty of the charge against him.
7

Appellant elevated the case to the CA, which affirmed the RTC Judgment.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

NO. Jurisprudence has consistently held that "prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an
entrapment operation x x x especially if the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by their
informant." Such is the situation in this case. PO2 Villaester, who was designated as the poseur buyer, was
11

assisted by the confidential informant, who contacted the appellant to inform the latter that there was a prospective
buyer of "shabu." As to the Chain of Custody Rule, the Court, taking into consideration the difficulty of complete
12

compliance with the said rule, has considered substantial compliance sufficient "as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending police officers." In this case,
13

although the marking of the evidence was done at the police station, the Court quotes with approval the discussion
of the CA on the matter.In the instant case the policemen were justified in marking the sachets of shabu at their
office. [Appellant] was struggling and trying to get away from the police, as testified by defense witness Alex
Esconas. [Appellant] himself testified that he even elbowed one of the arresting officers as he was resisting arrest.
The priority of the arresting officers is to apprehend the offender. They would have had difficulty, if not impossibility,
in marking the corpus delicti at that the scene of the crime considering that the [appellant] was quite out of
control. Likewise, the absence of a physical inventory and the lack of a photograph of the seized items are not
14

sufficient justifications to acquit the appellant as the Court in several cases has affirmed convictions despite the
failure of the arresting officers to strictly comply with the Chain of Custody Rule as long as the integrity and identity
of the corpus delicti of the crime are preserved. Considering the foregoing, there is no reason for the Court to doubt
the findings of the CA that the two sachets of "shabu" seized from the appellant were the same sachets
of "shabu" presented in evidence before the RTC. WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED.
3. G.R. No. 225500, September 11, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff­Appellee, v. JONAS GERONIMO Y PINLAC, Accused­Appellant.

FACTS:

Two informations were filed before the RTC accusing Geronimo of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. In the first information, Criminal Case No. C-83928, it accused Geronimo of selling shabu and mefenorex
weighing 0.01076 gram on or about April 12, 2010 in Caloocan City. Whereas in Criminal Case No. C-83929, he was accused
for possession of 4.1283 grams of marijuana on the same day and in the same place. The prosecution alleged that at around
ten 10:00 in the morning of April 12, 2010, a tip was received from a confidential informant that Geronimo was peddling
illegal drugs in Caloocan City. Acting on the said tip, Intelligence Agent 1 Joshua V. Arquero (IA1 Arquero) immediately
organized a buy-bust operation, which was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office
and the Philippine National Police (PNP). IA1 Arquero then instructed the informant to order P500.00 worth of shabu from
Geronimo. At around nine (9) o'clock in the evening, the buy-bust team composed of IA1 Arquero, Intelligence Officer (IO) 1
Crisanto Lorilla (IO1 Lorilla), IO 2 Lorenzo Advincula (IO2 Advincula), a certain IO1 Camayang, and one IO1 Mellion reached
the target area in Narra Street, Barangay 171, Caloocan City and conducted a quick surveillance thereof. Moments later,
Geronimo arrived, took out from his right pocket a transparent plastic sachet containing a suspected shabu, and handed it
over to the poseur-buyer, IO1 Lorilla, who, in turn, paid him with the buy-bust money.Shortly after, IO1 Lorilla lit a cigarette
to signal the rest of the team that the transaction was completed, prompting IO2 Advincula to rush towards the scene to
arrest Geronimo. Subsequently, IO1 Lorilla and IO2 Advincula frisked Geronimo's pockets. IO1 Lorilla recovered the buy-bust
money, while IO2 Advincula recovered the marijuana leaves wrapped in a newspaper and gave them to the former. The team
proceeded to the headquarters in Quezon City, and the confiscated items were supposedly marked, photographed, and
inventoried by IO1 Lorilla in the presence of Geronimo and Barangay Kagawad Jose Y. Ruiz. After conducting the inventory,
IO1 Lorilla secured the letter-request for laboratory examination from IO1 Jay son R. Albao and delivered the specimens to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for testing. Consequently, the specimens were received and examined by Forensic Chemist
Jappeth M. Santiago, who later on revealed that the substance found in the plastic sachet tested positive for the presence
of methamphetamine hydrochloride and mefenorex, while the other wrapped specimen tested positive for the presence of
marijuana, all dangerous drugs. For his part, Geronimo interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up, maintaining that at
the time of the incident, he was drinking at the house of his friend Julian Faura, Jr. (Faura) when three (3) unidentified
armed men suddenly arrived and forced him to board a white Toyota Revo. There, he noticed that his girlfriend Elaine Cabral
(Cabral), whom he recently had an argument with, was inside the vehicle as well. According to Geronimo, Cabral suddenly
slapped him, while the other men repeatedly hit him. Geronimo claimed that he was then brought to the PDEA office, where
he was forced to drink something and urinate in a small bottle. Subsequently, the police officers allegedly brought out
several plastic sachets, placed them on the table, and instructed Geronimo to stand before it while they took pictures of the
same. During trial, Geronimo pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged and presented Faura as his witness. In a Joint
Decision dated October 7, 2013, the RTC found Geronimo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of RA 9165. It held that all the essential elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs were duly proven. On the other hand, Geronimo's defenses of denial and frame-up failed to create reasonable doubt in
view of his positive identification as the culprit, as well as the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers in the
discharge of their duties. Moreover, the RTC declared that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were shown
to have been preserved from the time of seizure to receipt by the forensic chemist up to presentation in court. It added that
the requisite marking of seized items immediately upon their confiscation at the place of arrest is not absolute and can thus
be done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, given that there is no exact definition of the phrase
"immediately upon confiscation in Philippine Jurisprudence. Geronimo appealed to the CA, who affirmed the RTC’s ruling.
Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Geronimo's conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, as respectively
defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, should be upheld.

HELD:

NO. In both cases, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral certainty. Thus, in
order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken
chain of custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug
from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Relatedly, Section 21, Article II
of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure that police officers must follow in handling the seized
drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. Under the said section, the apprehending team shall, among
others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized
items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his 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 of the same; and the seized drugs must be turned over
to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation for examination. The Court, however, clarified that under
varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible. In fact,
the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 - which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of
RA 1064032 - provide that the said inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or
office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance with the
requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 - under justifiable grounds -will not render void and invalid the seizure
and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer or team. In other words, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply
with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the
items void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-
compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. An examination of the
records, however, reveals that although the requisite inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted in the
presence of Geronimo and an elected public official, the same was not done in the presence of the representatives from the
DOJ and the media. The law mandates the apprehending team to follow the prescribed procedure under Section 21 of RA
9165 mainly to ensure the proper chain of custody and avoid the possibility of switching, planting, or contamination of
evidence. There is nothing in the law which exempts the apprehending officers from securing the presence of an elected
public official and a representative from the DOJ or media, particularly in instances when they are not equipped with a search
warrant. In fact, RA 9165 and its IRR explicitly provide that non-compliance with the required procedure can only be allowed
under exceptional circumstances, provided that justifiable grounds are given and proven as a fact therefor by the
apprehending officers, which IA1 Arquero failed to show in this case. GERONIMO WAS ACQUITTED.

4. G.R. No. 179757, September 13, 2017

LEONARDO P. CASONA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS:

On February 6, 2004, at 7:20 in the morning, the drug enforcement unit of the Mandaluyong City Police Station
received a telephone call from a concerned citizen regarding an illegal drug activity in Barangay Poblacion, particularly in
Paraiso Street. On the basis of said information, PO2 Oliver Yumul, the officer-in-charge of the said unit, called a meeting to
conduct a surveillance operation in the said area. Immediately after coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA), a team, composed of PO1 Gomez, PO1 Alfaro, PO1 Saupi, PO1 Madlangbayan, POS Adriano and their team
leader, proceeded to the area. Upon arrival thereat, PO1 Gomez and PO1 Alfaro stay inside the van while the rest of the
group namely: PO1 Madalangbayan, POS Adriano, PO1 Saupi and their team leader went off While walking in their civilian
clothes, they saw two (2) male persons in the middle of Paraiso street exchanging something. PO1 Madalangbayan, who was
only an arm's length away from the two (2) suspects, saw one of them place a small plastic sachet in between his two (2)
fingers and then hand it to the other. The person to whom the plastic sachet was handed turned out to be the appellant.
Immediately, the group approached appellant and his companion and introduced themselves as police officers. At that
instance, appellant's companion ran away. The other police officers chased him but he escaped. Appellant, on the other
hand, was prevented from fleeing by PO1 Madlangbayan who arrested him. Upon arrest, PO1 Madlangbayan noticed that
appellant was holding a plastic sachet in his hand. After discovering that it contained suspected shabu, he ordered him to pull
out the contents of his pocket. Consequently, PO1 Madlangbayan recovered another plastic sachet from appellant containing
white crystalline substance. PO1 Madlangbayan informed appellant of his constitutional rights and brought him to the
Mandaluyong City Police Station for investigation. The plastic sachets recovered from appellant were submitted to the SOCO
for chemical analysis which, after examination, yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride,
otherwise known as "shabu." On the other hand, the petitioner vigorously denied the accusation. He insisted during the trial
that he was on his way to the off-track betting station at around 7:20 pm on February 6, 2004 when he encountered police
operatives from the Anti-Illegal Drugs Unit along Paraiso Street in Mandaluyong City who mentioned to him that they would
be conducting a raid; that on his way back from the betting station he again encountered the same police operatives but this
time they arrested him for allegedly selling shabu; that he resisted the arrest because he was surprised by their conduct, but
to no avail; and that they brought him with them to the hospital before taking him to their office, where he was investigated
and eventually detained. The RTC declared the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge. On appeal, the CA
affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged despite patent weakness of the prosecution evidence.

HELD:
YES. Every conviction for a crime should only be handed down after proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of
the accused for the crime charged has been adduced. "Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof
as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind." There is no question that the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 was enacted to revise the approaches in law enforcement involving drug-related offenses. The legislators then believed
that the predecessor enactment, Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, did not include needed safeguards against evidence
tampering or substitution. Among the new approaches was the incorporation of affirmative safeguards to deny wayward law
enforcers apprehending violators any opportunity for tampering with the confiscated evidence, and to ensure the
preservation of the integrity of the evidence from the moment of seizure until the ultimate disposal thereof upon order of the
trial court. This approach was a true recognition of the value as evidence of guilt of the seized illegal substances themselves -
which are no less the corpus delicti in the drug-related offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession so essential to the
conviction and incarceration of the offenders.Inasmuch as the dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the
offense charged, its identity and integrity must be shown by the State to have been preserved. On top of the elements for
proving the offense of illegal possession, therefore, is that the substance possessed is the very substance presented in court.
The State must establish this element with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required for ultimately handing
down a criminal conviction. To achieve this degree of certitude, the Prosecution has to account for all the links in the chain of
custody of the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure from the accused until it is presented in court as proof of
the corpus delicti. The process, though tedious, must be undergone, for the end is always worthwhile - the preservation of
the chain of custody that will prevent unnecessary doubts about the identity of the evidence. A careful review of the records
reveals that the police operatives did not faithfully follow the affirmative safeguards. For one, although the safeguards
required a physical inventory and photographing of the shabu immediately upon seizure and confiscation "in the presence of
the accused x x x, 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,"
there was no showing why no such inventory and photographing of the shabu had been made by the arresting team. It is
true that under the guidelines they could have also made the inventory and photographing at the police station by virtue of
the confiscation having been in flagrante delicto. Yet, they also did not make any inventory or take any photographs at the
police station. And, secondly, it was not also established that any of the police operatives had marked the seized shabu at
the crime scene and in the presence of the petitioner, a representative of the media, a representative of the DOJ, and any
elected official, as similarly required. In this regard, PO1 Madlangbayan identified the shabu in court through the markings
"LCP-1" and "LCP-2" (which were the initials of the petitioner), but there was no testimony by him or any other about the
specific circumstances of the placing of such markings, such as the time when and the place where the markings were
actually made.The lack of the inventory signed by the petitioner himself or by his representative as well as by the
representative of the media and the DOJ and/or the elected official as required by law could very well be held to and/or the
elected official as required by law could very well be held to mean that no shabu had been seized from the petitioner on that
occasion. Also, the lack of testimony by PO1 Madlangbayan on when and where he had placed the markings "LCP-1" and
"LCP-2" on the sachets of shabu sidelined the safeguards. Despite the blatant lapses in the compliance with the statutory
safeguards, the records do not contain any explanation offered by the State for the lapses. The non-compliance with the
affirmative safeguards thus rendered the evidence of the corpus delicti open to doubt. The significance of preserving the
integrity of the chain of custody for the dangerous drugs confiscated cannot ever be understated. To stress, the obligation to
tender the credible explanation for any non-compliance with the affirmative safeguards imposed by Section 21 of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 pertained to the State, and its agents, and to no other. If the State and its
agents do not discharge such obligation, then the evidence of guilt necessarily becomes suspect. In light of the foregoing, the
State did not establish the petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. How can there be any moral certainty of his guilt as
having illegally possessed the shabu presented at the trial if there were lapses in the observance of the affirmative
safeguards? It is quite notable that the CA relied too much on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties on the part of the arresting officers. Such reliance was premised on the failure of the petitioner during the trial to
impute any ill motive against them for arresting and incriminating him. In the SC’s view, however, such reliance was legally
unwarranted. ACQUITTED.

5. G.R. No. 207229, September 20, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIEGFRED CABELLON CABAÑERO, Accused-Appellant.

(Decided by Leonen this one. SKL. Haha)

FACTS:

Evidence for the prosecution showed that on April 13, 2006, a buy bust operation was planned to capture Cabellon in
the act of selling drugs. At 7:30 p.m., PO2 Junar Rey Barangan (PO2 Barangan), PO3 Rey Bucao (PO3 Bucao), and PO3
Reynato Abellar (PO3 Abellar) went to Sitio Jawod, Barangay Bulacao, Talisay City to commence the buy-bust operation. The
police officers had a poseur-buyer with them.5The asset poseur-buyer transacted with Cabellon in an alley, while the police
officers observed them from a distance. Once they saw the poseur-buyer scratch his head, their pre-approved signal, the
police officers descended upon Cabellon, who then ran away upon noticing the approaching officers. 6Cabellon ran and hid
inside a nearby house and the police officers followed him. The police officers stumbled upon three (3) men sniffing shabu
inside the house, one (1) of whom they apprehended while the other two (2) managed to escape. The police officers caught
up with Cabellon inside the house, whom they thereafter frisked. They recovered the marked P100.00 and P50.00 bills from
him.7After Cabellon's arrest, the poseur-buyer handed over the sachet of shabu he purchased from Cabellon to PO3 Bucao. 8
That same date, a sachet marked with "SCC 04/13/06" was turned over to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for
examination. The Request for Laboratory Examination was received by a certain PO1 Domael. 9P/S Insp. Mutchit G. Salinas
(P/S Insp. Salinas), a forensic chemist, confirmed executing Chemistry Report No. D-698-2006. She testified that she had
examined a heat-sealed plastic sachet of white crystalline substance labelled with "SCC 04/13/06." The chemistry report bore
the signatures of P/S Insp. Salinas and P/Supt. Myrna P. Areola. The specimen weighed 0.03 grams and tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).10Cabellon was the only defense witness and he denied selling shabu to the poseur-
buyer.11He claimed that on April 13, 2006, at about 3:30p.m., he was buying barbecue when he saw his aunt, Jane Cabellon,
crying. He asked her why she was crying and he told her that she had a fight with someone. He approached and slapped the
lady his aunt had a fight with. The lady then warned him that he would be arrested for what he had done to her. 12Later that
evening, at the barbecue station,13 he was arrested and bodily searched by some police officers; however, nothing was
recovered from him. He claimed that he was not informed by the arresting officers of the offense he supposedly violated. 14
Cabellon was then brought to the police station and was asked to call somebody. He was also asked to pay for his release
and for the settlement of the case filed against him. He was unable to pay or give a gift and declined to make the phone call;
hence, he was charged and a case was filed against him.The RTC found that the prosecution was able to prove all the
elements for the illegal sale of shabu.Cabellon filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, which held that the elements for
the illegal sale of shabu were duly proven by the prosecution. 22

ISSUE:

Whether or not accused-appellant Siegfred Cabellon's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-
observance of the required procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

HELD:

NO. In order to sustain a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, these two (2) elements must be
established by the prosecution: "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence."38 To prove that the illegal sale of shabu took place, the prosecution
presented PO3 Bucao and PO2 Barangan, two (2) of the police officers who were part of the buy-bust operation team which
apprehended the accused. Both PO3 Bucao39 and PO2 Barangan40 testified that they had seen the accused talk with the
poseur-buyer before the latter scratched his head, signalling that the transaction had taken place. The marked money was
recovered from the accused,41 while the poseur-buyer turned over the sachet with shabu he had bought from the accused to
PO3 Bucao.42While the prosecution may have proven that a transaction took place, it was not as convincing in its
presentation of the alleged corpus delicti as evidence. In all prosecutions for violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the corpus
delicti is the dangerous drug itself. Its existence is essential to a judgment of conviction. Hence, the identity of the
dangerous drug must be clearly established.Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition
and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration,
tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very same
objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication,
ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed. 44While it may be true that strict
compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 may be excused under justifiable grounds, the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items must still be preserved by the apprehending officer.This Court is not convinced that the prosecution
was able to prove the identity of the shabu supposedly seized from the accused. PO3 Bucao claimed that the poseur-buyer
turned over to him the sachet purchased from the accused and that he had custody of the sachet until he reached the police
station. He then handed the sachet to PO3 Abellar, who supposedly prepared the request for the chemical analysis of the
seized item. However, PO3 Bucao failed to identify who placed the markings on the sachet. Undeniably, a noticeable gap
exists in the chain of custody with the prosecution's failure to present evidence that the seized sachet was actually marked
by any of the three (3) apprehending officers. The prosecution likewise did not present evidence that the seized sachet was
inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media or the
Department of Justice, and an elected public official. Neither did it provide an explanation as to why the police officers did not
follow the requirements provided under the law.This blatant lack of compliance with the safeguards established in Republic
Act No. 9165 is made even more egregious by the fact that the seized sachet only contained 0.03 grams 51 of shabu, no more
than a grain of rice. The danger of tampering and planting of evidence was, thus, heightened, which should have put the
lower courts on guard and not have so easily relied on the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers in the
performance of their official acts. As this Court stated in People v. Holgado:52While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized
is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21.
In Mallillin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest
when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances
familiar to people in their daily lives. ACQUITTED.

6. September 20, 2017

G.R. No. 208095

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
JEFFERSON DEL MUNDO y ABAC and MITOS LACSON-DEL MUNDO, Accused-Appellants

FACTS:

Sometime in early May of 2005, the Calapan City Police Station Intelligence Team conducted surveillance
on the accused-appellants after receiving information that they were selling dangerous drugs in Barangay Calero,
Calapan City. The surveillance confirmed that the accused-appellants were indeed engaged in the business of
6

selling dangerous drugs. Consequently, a buybust operation was planned with P03 Rodil designated as the poseur-
buyer; while SP02 Espiritu, SPO1 Buhay, and at least two other unnamed police officers were tasked as
backups. Two (2) ₱l00.00 bills, supplied by Chief of Police P/Supt. Alexander Aceveda, were prepared as buy-bust
7

money and were marked with "MDR," P03 Rodil's initials. On 10 May 2005, at around two o'clock in the afternoon,
8

P03 Rodil, accompanied by a confidential informant, proceeded to the house of the accused-appellants in Barangay
Calero, Calapan City. SP02 Espiritu and SPO1 Buhay strategically positioned themselves near the target area, while
the other backups were far from the house. The informant knocked on the door of the accused-appellants. After a
9

few moments, a woman, later identified as Mitos, opened the door. The informant introduced P03 Rodil to Mitos as a
buyer of shabu. Mitos hesitated for a while as she doubted P03 Rodil's identity. After the asset assured Mitos that
P03 Rodil was a legitimate buyer, the latter handed to her the marked bills. Upon receipt of the money, Mitos turned
her head towards a man inside the house, later identified as Jefferson, and said "Pahingi ng halagang dalawang
piso." Thereafter, Jefferson handed to P03 Rodil a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances. At this
point, P03 Rodil gave the pre-arranged signal to call SP02 Espiritu. P03 Rodil then immediately apprehended Mitos
and seized the marked money in her possession. Meanwhile, upon getting the signal, SP02 Espiritu and SPO 1
10

Buhay immediately rushed to the crime scene to arrest Jefferson, but the latter fought back and even tried to stab
the head of SPO 1 Buhay with a ball pen. Jefferson then ran inside the house but SP02 Espiritu and SPOl Buhay
gave chase and caught him inside the toilet where he was seen throwing something into the toilet bowl. Using a
broomstick, the police officers retrieved four (4) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances from the
toilet bowl. After the sachets were wiped clean, SP02 Espiritu turned these over to P03 Rodil. After informing them
of their constitutional rights, the accusedappellants were brought to the Calapan City Police Station for booking and
further investigation. At the police station, the seized items were photographed, inventoried, and marked by P03
12

Rodil with her initials, in the presence of the accused-appellants, Romeo Gargullo (Garguilo), a barangay kagawad,
and Nicanor Ocampo, Sr. (Ocampo, Sr.), the president of Kill Droga movement in the area. The plastic sachet
13

seized by P03 Rodil was marked with the initial "YEL" while the 4 plastic sachets recovered by SP02 Espiritu were
marked with the initials MDRJ, MDR2, MDR3, and MDR4. Letter-requests for laboratory examination were then
prepared and delivered to the crime laboratory, together with the seized items, by P03 Rodil. The accused-
appellants were also brought to the crime laboratory for mandatory drug testing. On 10 May 2005, at about 4:55
14

p.m., the criminal laboratory received the letter-requests for laboratory examination and the five (5) heat-sealed
15

transparent sachets. After a qualitative examination, the substances inside the subject sachets yielded positive
results for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Urine samples from both Jefferson and Mitos also yielded
16

positive for the presence of shabu. On the side of the defense, the accused denied the allegations. On 10 May
17

2005, at about 2:15 p.m., Jefferson was inside the comfort room when he heard banging sounds on the front door of
their house. When he went out of the comfort room to check who was banging on their door, he saw five (5) to six
(6) police officers already inside their house. He noticed that their door knob and wooden lock had been destroyed.
Thereafter, the police officers approached his wife Mitos and frisked her. They then proceeded to search the house
for about half an hour. Jefferson asked them what they were searching for, but he was ignored and held. After the
search, the police officers told them that they found shabu inside their house. When Jefferson denied it, they
punched and kicked him, dragged him outside the house, and brought him to the police station. The RTC found
18

them Jefferson guilty of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs in Criminal Case Nos.
CR-05-8045 to 8046; while Mitos was found guilty of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs in Criminal Case
No. CR-05- 8045. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:

WHETHER THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED IN CONVICTING THE

ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.

HELD:
 YES. As a general rule, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to
great weight, and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, does not apply where facts of weight and
23

substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal. The Court opines that
24

the trial and appellate court misapprehended material facts in this case.In prosecuting both illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if doubt persists on the identity of said drugs. The
identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of
possession or sale are present, the fact that the dangerous drug illegally possessed and sold is the same drug
offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain
a guilty verdict. At the outset, the Court notes that the buy-bust team failed to observe the proper procedure in
25

taking custody of confiscated dangerous drugs. Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. While the prosecution was
able to present the inventory of the confiscated items, which was apparently prepared by P03 Rodil, and attested to
by Ocampo, Sr., of Kill Droga, the Court opines that the same could not be given any credence. Readily apparent
from the said inventory is the fact that it is undated. Hence, the requirement that the inventory must be made
immediately after seizure was not satisfied. Further, none of the persons required to sign the inventory, as
enumerated under the law, were made to sign the same. The Court notes that while the prosecution witnesses
testified that the seized items were physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the
accusedappellants and Garguilo, they were not made to sign the inventory. Instead, a certain Ocampo, Sr. was
made to sign the inventory. It must be noted that Ocampo, Sr. is not among those persons required by the law to
witness and sign the inventory as he did not represent the accused-appellants, the media, or the Department of
Justice. Neither was he an elected public official. P03 Rodil further testified that photographs were taken of the
accused-appellants and of the items confiscated from them. Not one of the alleged photographs, however, was
presented in court as part of the evidence for the prosecution and no explanation was offered to explain why.Non-
observance of the mandatory requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 casts doubt on the integrity
of the shabu supposedly seized from accused-appellant. This creates reasonable doubt in the conviction of
accused-appellant for violation of Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. In this case, no explanation was
30

offered by the prosecution for failing to comply with the requirements in Section 21. There is no justifiable ground for
its failure to require the accused-appellants and the elected public official to sign the inventory if they were indeed
present during the physical inventory. The absence of Gargullo and the accused-appellants' signatures on the
inventory raises the suspicion that the physical inventory was made without their presence, in violation of the
requirements under the law. More importantly, the Court opines that the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal
drugs seized have been compromised. The prosecution failed to sufficiently establish an unbroken chain of custody.
In criminal prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the following essential
elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor. What is material, therefore, is proof that the accused peddled illicit drugs, coupled
35

with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. After a thorough review of the records, the Court finds that the
36

prosecution indeed failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the sachet marked with the initials "YEL." The
prosecution failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody because the corpus delicti in Criminal Case No.
CR-05-8045 was not presented and offered in court in evidence. The presentation of evidence for the prosecution
was completed and yet they failed to present the sachet marked "YEL." Although the prosecution's Formal Offer of
Exhibits listed an Exhibit "F-1," purportedly referring to the confiscated five (5) sachets of shabu, the records do not
39

show that the plastic sachet with the markings "YEL" was ever presented and identified in court by any of the
prosecution witnesses. The parties merely stipulated that P03 Rodil would be able to identify the specimen subject
of this case which remained in the custody of the criminal laboratory. The prosecution's failure to present the sachet
40

marked as "YEL" is crucial to their cause because it constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, absent the
said corpus delicti, the Court is unable to sustain the accused-appellants' conviction for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs. Jefferson and Mitos must therefore be acquitted of the charges against them in Criminal Case No. CR-05-
8045. In his testimony, SP02 Espiritu recalled having custody of the four (4) sachets of shabu from the time he
retrieved the same from the toilet bowl until they arrived at the police station. Evidently, there is confusion and
uncertainty regarding the person who had custody of the sachets when they were brought to the police
station. Worse, no attempt to reconcile this inconsistency was made by the prosecution. As a consequence, the
1âwphi1

identity and integrity of the items marked at the police station were placed in serious doubt. Aside from the
confusion, another matter that militates the cause of the prosecution is the doubt on the number of confiscated
sachets which actually contained a white crystalline substance.SP02 Espiritu testified that he recovered four (4)
plastic sachets, each containing a white crystalline substance, which Jefferson had thrown into the toilet bowl. On
the other hand, SPO 1 Buhay testified that only one (1) out of several sachets retrieved from the toilet bowl
contained a white crystalline substance. Reasonable doubt thus exists, as the quantum of proof required for the
conviction of Jefferson for illegal possession of dangerous drugs was not met. His acquittal is, therefore, in order.
ACQUITTED.
7. G.R. No. 207992 August 11, 2014 (Leonen case again hehe)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ AND ANTONIO MISAREZ Y ZARAGA, Accused-appellants.

FACTS:

As alleged by the prosecution, inDecember 2006, the Pasig City Police received reports of illegal drug
activities of Holgado along C. Raymundo Street, Pasig City. After surveillance operations, a search warrant was
2

issued against Holgado. Acting on the search warrant, the Pasig City Chief of Police instructed his officers to, if
possible, first conduct a buy-bust operation before actuallyenforcing the search warrant. In the evening of January
3

17, 2007, police operatives went to No. 17, C. Raymundo Street for the buy-bust operation. PO1 Philip Aure, acting
as poseur-buyer and accompanied by the police informant, approached Holgado who was then part of a drinking
session with two (2) companions. Holgado asked the informant if he was buying drugs while at the same time
offering him a drink. The informant accepted the drink and introduced PO1 Aure as a drug user. PO1 Aure
thenhanded Holgado two (2) marked one hundred peso bills. Holgado asked PO1 Aure and the informant to wait as
the drugs were with his "kumpare" who was then in the restroom. Holgado called Misarez. After some time, co-
4

accused Antonio Misarez stepped out of the restroomand asked who was buying drugs. PO1 Aure and the informant
answered, "Kami." Misarez then handed a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance to PO1 Aure. PO1
Aure examined the sachet’s contents and took out his cellphone. This was the pre-arranged signal to the other
police operatives that the sale of drugs had been consummated. The police operatives then approached PO1 Aure.
5

When PO1 Aure saw his companions approaching, he seized Misarez’s hand, but the latter was able to escape and
lock himself inside the house. Holgado, too, was able to flee into the house and join Misarez. The police operatives
managed to break open the wooden door with a crowbar. By then, however, Holgado and Misarez had managed to
leave the house through a passageway in the ceiling leading to an adjoining house. PO3 Rolando Abuyme and PO2
Arnulfo Dancel managed to get inside the adjoining house where they apprehended Holgado and Misarez. The 6

search warrant was then enforced "in coordination with a barangay official and in the presence of some media
people." The search allegedly yielded several drugs and drug paraphernalia. These items (i.e., other than the
7 8

plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance supposedly sold to PO1 Aure) were the subject of three (3)
other cases. These other cases have since been dismissed. As noted in the Regional Trial Court’s August 17, 2009
9

decision, PO3 Abuyme prepared an inventory of the seized items. Specifically with respect to the plastic sachet
10

which was the basis of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, PO1 Aure supposedly marked the plastic
sachet handed to him by Misarez with "RH-PA" at the site of the buy-bust operation.Following their arrest, Holgado
11

and Misarez were charged with violating Sections 5 (sale of dangerous drugs), 11 (possession of dangerous
12

drugs), and 12 (possession of drug paraphernalia) of Republic Act No. 9165. The case for violating Section 5 was
13 14

docketed as Criminal Case No. 15338-D. The cases for violating Section 11 were docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
15339-D and 15341-D. The case for violating Section 12 was docketed as Criminal Case No. 15340-D. The charge
for violating Section 5 was in view of the plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance supposedly sold by
Holgado to PO1 Aure. The charges for violations of Sections 11 and 12 were in view of the items supposedly seized
in enforcing the search warrant.During trial, the prosecution presented as witnesses PO1 Aure and the
apprehending officers PO2 Roberto Castulo and PO3 Abuyme. The defense presented as its witnesses accused-
appellants Holgado and Misarez, as well as their neighbor, Carlos Marquing, and Holgado’s wife, Maribel
Villareal. In their testimonies, accused-appellants claimed that no buy-bust operation was conducted. Instead, the
15

police operatives allegedly barged into Holgado’s house and arrested accused-appellants who were then merely
having a few drinks. While Holgado and Misarez were handcuffed, the police operatives conducted a supposed
search of Holgado’s house. They were then taken to the police station. Defense witnesses Marquing and Villareal
corroborated accused-appellants’ claims. The RTC of Pasig City found Holgado and Misarez guilty of illegal saleof
16

dangerous drugs (i.e., violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165). They were acquitted of the charges pertaining
to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 as the drugs supposedly seized were not introduced in evidence. Holgado,
the sole accused in Criminal Case No. 15340-D, was also acquitted of the charges relating to Section 12 of Republic
Act No. 9165 asthe paraphernalia to which PO2 Castulo testified to in court were different from those indicated in
the inventory supposedly made when the search warrant was enforced. Holgado and Misarez were sentencedto
17

suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a penalty of ₱1million. Considering the penalty imposed by the
Court on the accused ROBERTO HOLGADO and ANTONIO MISAREZ for violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (sale
of dangerous drug), their immediate commitment to the National Bilibid Prisons is hereby ordered. The CA affirmed
the RTC’s decision convicting Holgado and Misarez.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Holgado’s and Misarez’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5 of Republic
Act No. 9165 was established. (Subsumed in the resolution of this issue is the question of whether the prosecution
was able to establish compliance with the requisites of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.)
HELD:

The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs are settled.
In People v. Morales, this court stated: In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
24

elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. On corpus delicti, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as
25

amended by Republic Act No. 10640, provides for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or
surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by
Section 21, therefore, ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug
paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g.,
weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident
allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to
have been in possession of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities for
planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner. By failing to establish identity of corpus delicti,
non-compliance with Section 21 indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs. It follows that this non-compliance suffices as a ground for acquittal. As this court stated in People v.
Lorenzo: In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a
32

persistent doubt on the identity of the drug.The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral
certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance
illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be
established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. The exactitude which the
33

state requires in handling seized narcotics and drug paraphernalia is bolstered by the amendments made to Section
21 by Republic Act No. 10640. In People v. Nandi, this court explained that four (4) links "should be established in
37

the chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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 officerto the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer ofthe 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." After a closer look, the Court finds that the linkages in the chain of
38

custody of the subject item were not clearly established. As can be gleaned from his forequoted testimony, PO1
1âwphi1

Collado failed to provide informative details on how the subject shabu was handled immediately after the seizure.
He just claimed that the item was handed to him by the accused in the course of the transaction and, thereafter,
hehanded it to the investigator. There is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and
recorded. PO1 Collado could not even provide the court with the name of the investigator. He admitted that he was
not present when it was delivered to the crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist Bernardino M. Banac, Jr. who
identified the person who delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory. He disclosed that he received the
specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not even a member of the buybust team. Per their record, PO1 Cuadra
delivered the letter-request with the attached seized item to the CPD Crime Laboratory Office where a certain PO2
Semacio recorded it and turned it over to the Chemistry Section.In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the
considered view that chain of custody of the illicit drug seized was compromised. Hence, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties cannot be applied in this case. While the buy-bust operation team allegedly
conducted an inventory of the seized items, it is unclear if this inventory was limited to those seized pursuant to the
enforcement of the search warrant (i.e., after the conduct of the buy-bust operation) or was inclusive of whatever
items seized during the buy-bust operation. In any case, this inventory was discredited as Holgado was acquitted by
the Regional Trial Court of the charge of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia because the inventory was found
to be unreliable visa-vis the testimony of PO2 Castulo. The paraphernaliato which PO2 Castulo testified to in court
were different from those indicated in the inventory supposedly made when the search warrant was enforced.There
have been claims to the effect that the search warrant was enforced "in coordination with a barangay official and in
the presence of some media people." However, this "barangay official" and these "media people" have neither
41

been identified nor presented as witnesses. In any case, even if it were to be granted that these individuals took part
in the events that transpired in the evening of January 17, 2007, their participation was alleged to have been only
with respect to the enforcement of the search warrant. It did not extend to the physical inventory and taking of
photographs of the seized items arising from the buy-bust operation, as required by Section 21. For that matter, it
was not even shown that photographs of the sachet marked as "RH-PA" were taken. Per his own testimony, PO1
Aure himself doubtedif any photograph was taken. In sum, the integrity of three (3) ofthe four (4) links enumerated
42

in People v. Nandi (i.e., seizure and marking, turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, and
49

turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist) has been cast in doubt. As in Nandi, this doubt must be
resolved in favor of accused-appellants.The events of January 17, 2007 should be taken and appreciated as a
whole even as they gave rise to four (4) distinct criminal cases which were separately docketed. The reasons for
acquitting accused-appellants for the charges of violating Sections 11 and 12 (i.e., the prosecution’s complete failure
to introduce in evidence the drugs seized and the testifying police operative’s own failure to properly account for the
paraphernalia he himself took part in seizing) seriously cast doubt, not only on accused-appellants’ own guilt, but
52

more so on the soundness and reliability of the measures taken and procedures followed by the police operatives.
These circumstances cast a heavy shadow on the integrity of the operation and the police operatives themselves.It
is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time
drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped
with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our
society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and
prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source
and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources
expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly
make a dent in the overall picture. Itmight in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to
uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the
leadership of these cartels. ACQUITTED.
8. G.R. No. 201845 March 6, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
EDGARDO ADRID y FLORES, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:

At around 10 o’clock in the evening of October 8 2006, a male informant arrived at the Manila Police District
(MPD) Anti-Illegal Drugs Unit (DAID) to report that one "Jon Jon" is pushing illegal drugs at Chesa, Tondo,
Manila.6 Acting on this tip, the DAID Chief immediately formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation and named a
certain SPO1 Macasling as team leader. Designated as poseur-buyer was SPO1 Marinda, while Police Officer 1
Jaycee John Galutera and Police Officer 2 Arnold Delos Santos (PO2 Delos Santos) were to serve as back-up
officers. Following the usual instructions, the buy-bust group was given two PhP 100 bills bearing the initials "DAID,"
to serve as marked money.7Thereafter, or at about 10:30 p.m., the operatives proceeded to the target area. Once
there, the informant approached and then had a brief conversation with a person, later identified as "Jon Jon,"
standing at the entry of an alley. The informant then called SPO1 Marinda, who, after being introduced to "Jon Jon,"
expressed his desire to purchase shabu as test buy to determine the quality of the goods. 8During the course of the
negotiations, Pacaul arrived and asked Adrid in the vernacular, "Tol, pakuha ng pang-gamit lang may bisita lang
ako." (Bro, can you give me some, I have a visitor.) SPO1 Marinda then saw Adrid hand over to Pacaul one plastic
sachet containing suspected shabu. Pacaul then left the scene, and PO2 Delos Santos immediately followed
him.9The negotiations continued, and SPO1 Marinda told the accused that he is buying "dos," meaning, that he was
buying the value of PhP 200. The accused replied, "Sigue ho, meron naman ho ako ng halagang hinahanap
ninyo."10 (Okay sir, I have the amount you are looking for). He then handed to SPO1 Marinda a sealed plastic
sachet, with a white substance in the appearance of "vetsin." 11 SPO1 Marinda received the filled sachet with his left
hand, and handed Adrid the PhP 200 marked money using his right hand. This sachet was later marked as "DAID-
1." SPO1 Marinda then immediately grabbed Adrid’s arm, introduced himself as a police officer, and arrested the
latter.12 Found in Adrid’s possession when frisked was another sachet of suspected shabu, later marked as "DAID-
2." Some persons who tried to intervene in the entrapment episode were likewise arrested. From the target area,
Adrid and two other individuals were brought to MPD DAID. There, the police officers learned that the real name of
"Jon Jon" is Edgardo Adrid, the same accused in the case here. In his testimony during the trial, SPO1 Marinda
claimed that he turned over the plastic sachets recovered from Adrid, together with the marked money, to the
investigator at DAID, a certain SPO1 Pama who, in his (SPO1 Marinda’s) presence, marked the recovered sachets
as "DAID-1"13 and "DAID-2." The sachet recovered from Pacaul was marked as "DAID-3." SPO1 Marinda’s direct
narrative ended with the statement that these three sachets were submitted for laboratory examination to the DAID
Forensic Chemistry Division. He, however, admitted having no participation in the submission of the specimen for
examination. The examination later yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 14During
cross-examination, SPO1 Marinda testified that prior to the buy-bust operation, his group coordinated with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). He was not sure, however, if the pre-operation report is present in the
records of the case, albeit he admitted not indicating the fact of coordination in his Affidavit of Apprehension. 15 The
accused, on the other hand, stated that on October 6, 2006, at about 7:30 in the evening, after having supper,
several men suddenly entered his house on Magsaysay St., Tondo, Manila, introduced themselves as police officers
and without so much of an explanation apprehended and handcuffed him. 16 When he asked them, "ano po ang
kasalanan ko, bakit ninyo ako hinuhuli sir?" (What did I do sir, why are you arresting me?), the intruders simply gave
a dismissive reply, "sumama ka na lang sa amin." 17 (Just come with us.) At the MPD DAID, he was mauled and
forced to admit something regarding the sale of drugs. 18 The police, according to Adrid, was actually after a certain
"Jon Jon" who was into selling drugs, but who have given the police officers a slip. For its failure to nab "Jon Jon,"
the police turned to Adrid to admit to some wrongdoings. 19 And albeit he has no actual knowledge of "Jon Jon’s" full
name, he is aware of his being a well-known drug lord in their area and knows where "Jon Jon" lives, as he, "Jon
Jon" has in fact been to his (Adrid’s) house three times to have a PlayStation game. 20The RTC found the accused
Adrid guilty beyond reasonable doubt for sale of illegal drugs but acquitted Adrid and Pacaul for illegal possession of
drugs), for insufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE:

Whether or not THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 29

HELD:

YES.The Court has long held that the absence of a prior surveillance is neither a necessary requirement for
the validity of a drug-related entrapment or buy-bust operation nor detrimental to the People’s case. The immediate
conduct of the buy-bust routine is within the discretion of the police officers, especially, as in this case, when they
are accompanied by the informant in the conduct of the operation. Whether or not the buy-bust team coordinated
PDEA is, under the premises, of little moment, for coordination with PDEA, while perhaps ideal, is not an
indispensable element of a proper buy-bust operation. The Court, in People v. Roa, has explained the rationale and
practicality of this sound proposition in the following wise: In the first place, 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 Republic Act 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 Republic Act No. 9165 in support of the PDEA. A buy-bust operation is not
invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA. The foregoing notwithstanding, appellant is still entitled to an
acquittal considering that certain critical circumstances that had been overlooked below, which, if properly
appreciated, engender moral uncertainty as to his guilt. Nothing less than evidence of criminal culpability beyond
reasonable doubt can overturn the presumption of innocence. In this regard, the onus of proving the guilt of the
accused lies with the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of
the defense.In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, 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 for it.35 As it were, the dangerous drug itself forms an integral and key part of the corpus
delicti of the offense of possession or sale of prohibited drugs. Withal, it is essential in the prosecution of drug cases
that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. This means that on top of the
elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact that the substance illegally sold or possessed is, in the first instance,
the very substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that
required sustaining a conviction. The chain of custody requirement, as stressed in People v. Cervantes, 36 and other
cases, performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are
minimized if not altogether removed. The Court particularly notes that of the individuals who came into direct contact
with or had physical possession of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from appellant, only SPO1 Marinda
testified for the specific purpose of identifying the evidence. But his testimony failed to sufficiently demonstrate an
unbroken chain, for he himself admits that at the police station he transferred the possession of the specimen to an
investigator at the MPD DAID, one SPO1 Pama to be precise. And after this turnover of the specimen, SPO1
Marinda no longer had personal knowledge of the whereabouts of the shabu-containing sachet. In plain language,
the custodial link ended with SPO1 Marinda when he testified that the specimen was submitted for laboratory
examination, he was veritably assuming the occurrence of an event; he was not testifying on the fact of submission
out of personal knowledge, because he took no part in the transfer of the specimen from the police station to the
laboratory. This testimony of SPO1 Marinda alone, while perhaps perceived by the courts below as straightforward
and clear, is incomplete to satisfy the rule on chain of custody. It baffles this Court no end why the prosecution opted
not to present the investigator, identified as SPO1 Pama, to whom SPO1 Marinda allegedly handed over the
confiscated sachets for recording and marking. If SPO1 Pama indeed received the sachets containing the illegal
drugs and then turned them over to the laboratory for testing, his testimony is vital in establishing the whereabouts
of the seized illegal drugs and how they were handled from the time SPO1 Marinda turned them over to him, until he
actually delivered them to the laboratory. He could have accounted for the whereabouts of the illegal drugs from the
time he possessed them. The indispensability of SPO1 Pama testimony cannot be over-emphasized. He could have
provided the link between the testimony of SPO1 Marinda and the tenor of the testimony of PS/Insp. Mariano, which
the prosecution and appellant have already stipulated on. As the evidence on record stands, there is a considerable
amount of time, a gaping hiatus as it were, in which the whereabouts of the illegal drugs were unaccounted for. This
constitutes a clear but unexplained break in the chain of custody. Then too no one testified on how the specimen
was handled and cared following the analysis. And of course no one was presented to prove that the specimen
turned over for analysis, if that be the case, and eventually presented in court as exhibits were the same substance
SPO1 Pama received from SPO1 Marinda. There are so many unanswered questions regarding the possibility of
evidence tampering and the identity of evidence. These questions should be answered satisfactorily to determine
whether the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized substance have been compromised in any way. Else,
the prosecution cannot plausibly maintain that it was able to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable
doubt.42Thus, the trial court should not have easily accorded the drugs presented in court much credibility. Not lost
on the Court is the prosecution’s admission that the "Forensic Chemical Officer has no personal knowledge as to
where or from whom the specimen she examined originally came from x x x; that several hands got hold of the said
specimen before the presentation of the same in court." 43 This admission puts into serious question whether it was in
fact the same SPO1 Pama who turned over the specimen for laboratory testing, or some other police officer or
person took possession of the specimen before it was brought to the laboratory. The prosecution’s own misgivings
created a reasonable doubt on the integrity of the drugs presented in court, and necessarily strongly argue against a
finding of guilt. In People v. Librea, 46 the Court acquitted the accused for the reason that the circumstances of how
the person who delivered the specimen for laboratory testing came into possession of the specimen remained
unexplained. The CA, thus, gravely erred in ruling that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated
prohibited drug were properly preserved.47 On the contrary, the prosecution failed to provide each and every link in
the chain of custody. This runs contrary to the rule that the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering
exactitude.48 ACQUITTED.
9. G.R. No. 219955, February 05, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GLENN DE GUZMAN Y DELOS REYES, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS:

On November 12, 2009, at around 11:45 p.m., the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Unit of Olongapo City, in coordination
with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), conducted an entrapment operation against appellant along Balic-balic
Street, Sta. Rita, Olongapo City. Prior surveillance had confirmed numerous reports that appellant was indiscriminately
selling marijuana within the neighborhood.5During the pre-operation briefing, P/Insp. Julius Javier designated PO1 Lawrence
Reyes (PO1 Reyes) as poseur buyer, SPO1 Allan Delos Reyes (SPO1 Delos Reyes) as case investigator and back-up, PO2
David Domingo as spotter, and three other policemen as perimeter security. 6At the target area, appellant approached PO1
Reyes and asked if he wanted to buy marijuana. PO1 Reyes accepted the offer and handed the P100.00 marked money to
appellant who, in turn, gave him a sachet of marijuana fruiting tops. Once the exchange was completed, PO1 Reyes grabbed
appellant's right hand which served as the pre-arranged signal that the transaction had been consummated. 7SPO1 Delos
Reyes rushed to the scene and assisted PO1 Reyes in conducting a body search on appellant. They introduced themselves as
police officers, informed appellant of his constitutional rights and placed him under arrest. After the body search, SPO1 Delos
Reyes recovered the P100.00 marked money, four sachets of marijuana and one plastic pack containing a small brick of
marijuana fruiting tops.8The entrapment team immediately brought appellant to the police station after his relatives created
a commotion and tried to interfere in appellant's arrest.9At the police station, PO1 Reyes marked the sachet that was the
subject of the buy-bust operation with his initials "LR" and turned it over to SPO1 Delos Reyes who also put his initials "ADR"
thereon. SPO1 Delos Reyes separately marked the other four sachets and the plastic pack that he had confiscated from
appellant during the body search with his initials "ADR."10SPO1 Delos Reyes then prepared the Inventory Receipt, the Letter
Request for Laboratory Examination, and the Request for Drug Test. 11 Photographs of the confiscated items were also taken.
Notably, only two barangay officials were present during the conduct of a physical inventory of the seized items there were
no representatives from both the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media. 12Later, SPO1 Delos Reyes personally turned
over the seized items to the Regional Crime Laboratory in Olongapo City. 13 On November 13, 2009, Forensic Chemist Arlyn
Dascil (Forensic Chemist Dascil) conducted a qualitative examination on the subject specimens to determine the presence of
dangerous drugs. Based on Chemistry Report No. D-074-2009-OCCLO, 14 the seized items tested positive for the presence of
marijuana, a dangerous drug. Appellant raised the defenses of denial and frame-up and insisted that the evidence against
him was planted. He narrated that, while on his way home from a party, some armed men alighted from a van and asked for
the whereabouts of a certain "Bunso." After failing to provide an answer, he was frisked and brought to the police station
where he was incarcerated and forced to point to the drugs on the table as pictures were taken. 15 The RTC found appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The CA affirmed the assailed RTC
Decision in toto.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the chain of custody over the seizes items remained unbroken

HELD:

NO. The presentation of evidence establishing the elements of the offenses of illegal sale and possession of
dangerous drugs alone is insufficient to secure or sustain a conviction under RA 9165. In People v. Denoman,31 the Court
explained: A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence
establishing each element of the crime: the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug and
the existence of the corpus delicti. In securing or sustaining a conviction under RA No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these
pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must definitely be shown to have been
preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not
readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to
remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show
that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant;
otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for drug pushing under RA No. 9165 fails. 32Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 provides the procedural safeguards that the apprehending team should observe in the handling of seized illegal drugs in
order to preserve their identity and integrity as evidence. "As indicated by their mandatory terms, strict compliance with the
prescribed procedure is essential and the prosecution must show compliance in every case." 33Unfortunately, the prosecution
failed not only to recognize and explain the procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team, but also to adduce evidence
establishing the chain of custody of the seized items that would demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of said
items had been preserved. In Derilo v. People,38 the Court laid down the guidelines in order to show an unbroken chain of
custody of seized dangerous drugs. In simpler terms, the following links must be established in order to ensure that the
identity and integrity of the seized items had not been compromised: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
il1egal 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.40Although the records show that PO1 Reyes turned over the sachet of marijuana that was
the subject of the sale to SPO1 Delos Reyes at the police station, 41 and SPO1 Delos Reyes himself was the one who
confiscated the four sachets of marijuana and one plastic pack containing a brick of marijuana after conducting a lawful
search on appellant,42 their testimonies are glaringly silent on details regarding the handling and disposition of the seized
items after appellant's arrest They both failed to disclose the identity of the person/s who had custody and possession of the
confiscated items after their seizure, or that they themselves had retained custody of the same from the place of arrest until
they reached the police station.43The prosecution's evidence relating to the third link in the chain of custody, i.e., the
turnover of the seized items from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist, also has loopholes. It appears, based on
the prosecution's evidence no less, that for reasons unknown, the PNP Crime Laboratory agreed to turn over custody of the
seized items to an unnamed receiving person at the City Prosecutor's Office before they were submitted as evidence to the
trial court. It should be emphasized that the City Prosecutor's Office is not, nor has it ever been, a part of the chain of
custody of seized dangerous drugs. It has absolutely no business in taking custody of dangerous drugs before they are
brought before the court. Given the flagrant procedural lapses committed by the police in handling the seized marijuana and
the serious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, the lower courts clearly misapplied the presumption of regularity in
the perfonnance of official duties in the prosecution's favor. After all, it is settled that a presumption of regularity cannot
arise where the questioned official acts are patentlyirregular,47 as in this case. All told, the totality of these
circumstances leads the Court to inevitably conclude that the identity of the corpus delicti was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt. The failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized marijuana is fatal to its cause.
ACQUITTED.

10.  G.R. No. 163217 April 18, 2006

CELESTINO MARTURILLAS, Petitioner

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:

On November 4, 1998, Lito Santos, a forty-three-year old farmer and resident of Barangay Gatungan,
Bunawan District, Davao City, was eating supper in their kitchen when he heard a gunshot. From a distance of
about ten (10) meters, he also noticed smoke and fire coming from the muzzle of a big gun. Moments later, he saw
Artemio clasping his chest and staggering backwards to the direction of his kitchen. Artemio shouted to him,
‘Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil ko ni kapitan,’ meaning ‘Help me, Pre, I was shot by the captain.’ Lito did not see the person
who shot Artemio because his attention was then focused on Artemio. Shortly, Lito saw Ernita Pantinople, the wife of
Artemio, coming from her house towards the direction where Artemio was sprawled on the ground. Ernita was
hysterical, jumping and shouting, ‘Kapitan, bakit mo binaril and aking asawa.’ She also repeatedly cried for help. Lito
then went out of their house and approached Artemio who was lying dead near a banana trunk more than five (5)
meters from his house. Some of their neighbors, namely: Antenero, Loloy Libre and Lapis answered Ernita’s call for
help and approached them.When the shooting incident happened about 7:30 in the evening of November 4, 1998,
Lito’s house was illumined by a lamp. Their kitchen has no walls. It is an open-type kitchen giving him an
unobstructed view of Artemio who was about five (5) meters away from where he was positioned at that time.
Although there was a gemilina tree growing in the space in between his house and the store of Artemio, the same
did not block his view of Artemio. Likewise, the coconut trees and young banana plants growing at the scene of the
crime did not affect his view. At the same instance, Ernita was also in their kitchen preparing milk for her baby. Her
baby was then lying on the floor of their kitchen. When she was about to put the bottle into the baby’s mouth, she
suddenly heard the sound of a gunburst followed by a shout, ‘Help me Pre, I was shot by the captain.’ She
immediately pushed open the window of their kitchen and saw appellant wearing a black jacket and camouflage
pants running towards the direction of the back portion of Lito’s house. From there, appellant crossed the street and
disappeared. Ernita saw appellant carrying with him a long firearm which looked like an M-14 rifle. Ernita also
sensed that appellant had some companions with him because she heard the crackling sound of the dried leaves
around the place. Ernita had a clear view of appellant at that time because their place was well-illumined by the full
moon that night and by the two (2) fluorescent lamps in their store which were switched on at the time of the
incident. Ernita immediately went out of their house and ran towards Artemio. Upon the arrival of policemen, Ernita
and Lito then approached PO2 Operario and informed him that appellant was the one responsible for the shooting.
On the other hand, petitioner presented that 2 kagawads, Jimmy Balugo and Norberto Libre, informed him that a
resident of his barangay, Artemio Pantinople, had just been shot. Petitioner proceeded to the crime scene to
determine what assistance they could render. While approaching the store owned by the Pantinople’s and not very
far from where the deceased lay sprawled, Petitioner was met by Ernita Pantinople who was very mad and
belligerent. She immediately accused Petitioner of having shot her husband instead of Lito Santos who was his
enemy. Petitioner was taken aback by the instant accusation against him. He explained that he just came from his
house where he was roused by his Kagawads from his sleep. Not being able to talk sense with Ernita Pantinople,
Petitioner and his companions backed off to avoid a heated confrontation. Petitioner instead decided to go back to
his house along with his companions.Upon reaching his house, Petitioner instructed Kagawad Jimmy Balugo to
contact the Bunawan Police Station and inform them what transpired. Moments later, PO2 Mariano Operario and
another police officer arrived at the house of Petitioner and when confronted by the latter, he was informed by PO2
Operario that he was the principal suspect in the slaying of Artemio Pantinople. Upon their invitation, Petitioner
immediately went with the said police officers for questioning at the Bunawan Police Station. He also took with him
his government-issued M-14 Rifle and one magazine of live M-14 ammunition which Petitioner turned over for safe
keeping with the Bunawan PNP. The police blotter showed that Petitioner surrendered his M-14 rifle with live
ammunition to SPO1 Estrellan and PO3 Sendrijas of the Bunawan PNP. During the trial, Dr. Ledesma explained that
Artemio died of a gunshot wound, 0.9 x 0.8 centimeters in size located about one (1) inch away from the centerline
of Artemio’s Adam’s apple down to his navel and about 1:00 o’clock from his right nipple. The trajectory of the bullet
passing through Artemio’s body indicates that his assailant was in a lower position than Artemio when the gun was
fired. Dr. Ledesma also found the wound of Artemio negative of powder burns indicating that the assailant was at a
distance of more than twenty-four (24) inches when he fired his gun at Artemio. He did not also find any bullet slug
inside the body of Artemio indicating that the bullet went through Artemio’s body. Artemio’s heart and lungs were
lacerated and his stomach contained partially digested food particles indicating that he had just eaten his meal when
he was shot. After the fatal shooting of deceased, Celestino Marturillas was subjected to paraffin testing by the PNP
Crime Laboratory in Davao City at 10:30 a.m. November 5, 1998. The next day, November 6, 1998, the PNP Crime
Laboratory released Physical Sciences Report No. C-074-98 regarding the paraffin test results which found
Petitioner NEGATIVE for gunpowder nitrates based on the following findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory. The RTC
found Marturillas guilty. The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC that the guilt of petitioner had been established
beyond reasonable doubt. According to the appellate court, he was positively identified as the one running away
from the crime scene immediately after the gunshot. This fact, together with the declaration of the victim himself that
he had been shot by the captain, clearly established the latter’s complicity in the crime.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the prosecution’s evidence is credible;

2. Whether or not the evidence is sufficient to convict him of homicide.

HELD:

1. YES. Basic is the rule that this Court accords great weight and a high degree of respect to factual findings of
the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in the present case. 13 Here, the RTC was
unequivocally upheld by the CA, which was clothed with the power to review whether the trial court’s
conclusions were in accord with the facts and the relevant laws.14 Indeed, the findings of the trial court are
not to be disturbed on appeal, unless it has overlooked or misinterpreted some facts or circumstances of
weight and substance.15 Although there are recognized exceptions 16 to the conclusiveness of the findings of
fact of the trial and the appellate courts, petitioner has not convinced this Court of the existence of any.
Petitioner contends that it was inconceivable for Prosecution Witness Ernita Pantinople -- the victim’s wife --
to have identified him as the assassin. According to him, her house was "a good fifty (50) meters away from
the crime scene,"17 which was "enveloped in pitch darkness."18 Because of the alleged improbability, he
insists that her testimony materially contradicted her Affidavit. The Affidavit supposedly proved that she had
not recognized her husband from where she was standing during the shooting. If she had failed to identify
the victim, petitioner asks, "how was it possible for her to conclude that it was [p]etitioner whom she claims
she saw fleeing from the scene?" 19All these doubts raised by petitioner are sufficiently addressed by the
clear, direct and convincing testimony of the witness. She positively identified him as the one "running away"
immediately after the sound of a gunshot. Certain that she had seen him, she even described what he was
wearing, the firearm he was carrying, and the direction towards which he was running. She also clarified that
she had heard the statement, "Help me p’re, I was shot by the captain," uttered after the shooting incident.
"Ernita’s testimony that she saw [petitioner] at the crime scene is credible because the spot where Artemio
was shot was only 30 meters away from her house. Undoubtedly, Ernita is familiar with [petitioner], who is
her neighbor, and a long-time barangay captain of Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City when
the incident took place. Ernita was also able to see his face while he was running away from the crime
scene. The identification of a person can be established through familiarity with one’s physical features.
Once a person has gained familiarity with one another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from
a considerable distance. This Court has consistently held that -- given the proper conditions -- the
illumination produced by a kerosene lamp, a flashlight, a wick lamp, moonlight, or starlight is considered
sufficient to allow the identification of persons.25 In this case, the full moon and the light coming from two
fluorescent lamps of a nearby store were sufficient to illumine the place where petitioner was; and to enable
the eyewitness to identify him as the person who was present at the crime scene. Settled is the rule that
when conditions of visibility are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their assertion as to
the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted. 26Ernita positively testified that immediately after
the shooting, she had heard her husband say, "Help me p’re, I was shot by the captain." This statement was
corroborated by another witness, Lito Santos, who testified on the events immediately preceding and
subsequent to the shooting.It should be clear that Santos never testified that petitioner was the one who had
actually shot the victim. Still, the testimony of this witness is valuable, because it validates the statements
made by Ernita. He confirms that after hearing the gunshot, he saw the victim and heard the latter cry out
those same words.The two witnesses unequivocally declared and corroborated each other on the fact that
the plea, "Help me p’re, I was shot by the captain," had been uttered by the victim. Having established that
the victim indeed uttered those words, the question to be resolved is whether they can be considered as part
of the dying declaration of the victim.Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, provides:"The declaration of
a dying person, made under the consciousness of impending death, may be received in any case wherein
his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such
death."Generally, witnesses can testify only to those facts derived from their own perception. A recognized
exception, though, is a report in open court of a dying person’s declaration made under the consciousness
of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case. 37Statements identifying the assailant, if
uttered by a victim on the verge of death, are entitled to the highest degree of credence and
respect.38 Persons aware of an impending death have been known to be genuinely truthful in their words and
extremely scrupulous in their accusations.39 The dying declaration is given credence, on the premise that no
one who knows of one’s impending death will make a careless and false accusation. 40 Hence, not
infrequently, pronouncements of guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the dying declaration of the
deceased victim.41As found by the CA, the dying declaration of the victim was complete, as it was "a full
expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning. It [was] complete and [was] not merely
fragmentary."47 Testified to by his wife and neighbor, his dying declaration was not only admissible in
evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, but was also a weighty and telling piece of evidence.

2. YES. The totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to sustain the conviction of
petitioner. The dying declaration made by the victim immediately prior to his death constitutes evidence of
the highest order as to the cause of his death and of the identity of the assailant. 53 This damning evidence,
coupled with the proven facts presented by the prosecution, leads to the logical conclusion that petitioner is
guilty of the crime charged. The circumstances proven by the prosecution produce a conviction beyond
 reasonable doubt. From Santos and Ernita’s testimonies, the statement "Captain, why did you shoot my
husband?" was established as part of the res gestae, the version of the events given by petitioner being
simply implausible up to the prosecution being able to establish motive on the part of petitioner. The victim’s
wife positively testified that prior to the shooting, her husband was trying to close a real estate transaction
which petitioner tried to block. This showed petitioner’s antagonism towards the victim. 56These pieces of
evidence indubitably lead to the conclusion that it was petitioner who shot and killed the victim. This Court
has consistently held that, where an eyewitness saw the accused with a gun seconds after the gunshot and
the victim’s fall, the reasonable conclusion is that the accused had killed the victim. 57 Further establishing
petitioner’s guilt was the definitive statement of the victim that he had been shot by the barangay captain.
Clearly, petitioner’s guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. To be sure, conviction in a criminal case
does not require a degree of proof that, excluding the possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. 58 Only
moral certainty is required or that degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 59That
some pieces of the above-mentioned evidence are circumstantial does not diminish the fact that they are of
a nature that would lead the mind intuitively, or by a conscious process of reasoning, toward the conviction
of petitioner.60 Circumstantial, vis-à-vis direct, evidence is not necessarily weaker. 61 Moreover, the
circumstantial evidence described above satisfies the requirements of the Rules of Court, which we quote:

"SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. -- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt." 62

Paraffin Test: Petitioner takes issue with the negative results of the paraffin test done on him. While they were
negative, that fact alone did not ipso facto prove that he was innocent. Time and time again, this Court has held that
a negative paraffin test result is not a conclusive proof that a person has not fired a gun. 63 In other words, it is
possible to fire a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when culprits wear gloves, wash their hands afterwards, or
are bathed in perspiration.64 Besides, the prosecution was able to establish the events during the shooting, including
the presence of petitioner at the scene of the crime. Hence, all other matters, such as the negative paraffin test
result, are of lesser probative value.

Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are AFFIRMED, subject to the modification in the
award of damages set forth here. Costs against petitioner. GUILTY.
11. G.R. No. 123137 October 17, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PO2 ALBERT ABRIOL, MACARIO ASTELLERO, and JANUARIO DOSDOS, accused-appellants.

FACTS:

At around 11:50 P.M., June 5, 1993, Romeo Sta. Cruz, Jr., a radio news reporter then aboard his jeep, had
just reached the ABS-CBN compound in P. del Rosario Street, Cebu City, when he heard a couple of gunshots. He
looked around and saw a man running unsteadily towards the intersection of P. del Rosario Street and Jones
Avenue. The man was shouting "Tabang, tabang!" ("Help! Help!"). Sta. Cruz, Jr., saw a red "Jiffy" make a U-turn
near the gate of the city central school that nearly ran over the man shouting for help. The man turned back and
staggered towards the direction of Bacalso Avenue and Urgello Private Road, but after a few meters on wobbly legs,
he stopped and collapsed. Meanwhile, the "Jiffy" followed. It stopped beside the fallen figure and a tall, thin man
alighted. The man fired several shots at the prostrate figure. He boarded the "Jiffy" which sped away towards Leon
Kilat Street. Romeo Sta. Cruz, Jr., moved his jeep and focused its headlights on the victim. In the meantime, PO3
Alexander Rustela was at a vulcanizing shop near the intersection of Bacalso Avenue and Leon Kilat Street, when
he heard gunshots coming from the north. He ran towards where the gunshots came and saw people scampering.
All of a sudden, the "Jiffy" with three persons on board sped past him and made an abrupt left turn at Leon Kilat
Street. Rustela immediately radioed for assistance. Minutes later, patrol car No. 201 with PO2 Herbert Ramos on
board arrived. Rustela boarded the car and they followed the "Jiffy," while broadcasting an alarm to police
headquarters and other mobile patrol cars. On nearby Colon Street, SPO1 Eleazar Abrigana and PO2 Romeo
Abellana were cruising aboard patrol car No. 208, when they heard a radio message that the suspects in the
shooting incident were aboard a "Jiffy." As they turned left at Leon Kilat Street, they saw the "Jiffy" heading towards
Carbon Market. They pursued the "Jiffy" which stopped in front of the Don Bosco Building near BBRC, when police
car No. 205, with PO Eugenio Badrinas and PO2 Gerald Cue aboard, blocked the "Jiffy's" path. Cue fired a warning
shot and three persons alighted. The driver was appellant Astellero, whom Cue had recognized and seen before at
the BBRC. Abrigana and Cue approached the trio who stood a meter away from the "Jiffy." SPO1 Abrigana frisked
Abriol and seized from his waist a .38 caliber revolver with serial number PO8485 with six (6) empty shells in its
cylinder.11 Under Abriol's seat, the police also found a .45 caliber pistol bearing serial number PGO 13506 with nine
(9) live rounds in its magazine and another .45 caliber pistol with serial number 52469 loaded with five (5) unfired
bullets.12While the patrol cars were chasing the "Jiffy," another police team proceeded to the crime scene in
response to the alarm. This team from Police Station No. 3 in San Nicolas, Cebu City rushed the victim to the Cebu
City Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Meanwhile, PO3 Celso Seville, Jr., a homicide
investigator of Police Station No. 3 found four (4) .45 caliber shells some four (4) feet away from the victim's body,
and two (2) deformed slugs where the victim had lain, and submitted them to the Region 7 PNP Crime Laboratory
for ballistics testing.13Dr. Ladislao Diola, Jr., Chief of the PNP Region 7 Crime Laboratory autopsied the victim's
body. He found that the cause of the victim's death was "cardiorespiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage
secondary to multiple gunshot wounds to the trunk and head.'' 14 Dr. Diola recovered a .38 caliber slug from the
corpse, which he later submitted for ballistics examination.The following day, appellants underwent a paraffin test.
The hands of appellants were found positive for gunpowder residues. A chemistry test on the firearms showed that
the three handguns were also positive. Inspector Myrna Areola, Chief of the Chemistry Section of the PNP Region 7
Crime Laboratory, stated in her testimony that the firearms had been fired, 16 and that appellants had fired the guns
within a period of seventy-two (72) hours prior to the examination. The widow and relatives of the victim testified on
the possible motive behind the killing. They claimed the victim, a confessed drug user, may have been "rubbed out"
on the orders of Navales for failure to remit P31,000 as proceeds from pushing prohibited drugs. After failing to
deliver the drug money to Navales, for whom he was repeatedly pushing drugs, the victim went into hiding, but later
returned to Cebu City because he missed his family. 17Appellants deny the accusations. On the day of the incident,
Astellero realized that there was no money for the next day's marketing so he asked Abriol to accompany him to the
house of Navales, but since he was not in, they returned to BBRC and saw Navales an hour later. After they
received the money from Navales' niece on their way back to BBRC, Dosdos heard gunshots. Abriol ordered
Astellero, who was driving, to turn back. Then Abriol claimed he saw a tall, slim man alight from a "Jiffy" and shoot at
a prone figure on the ground. Seconds later, the gunman returned to the "Jiffy," which sped off. Abriol said he
ordered Astellero to chase that "Jiffy" but it had too much of a headstart and they lost sight of it. Abriol ordered
Astellero to proceed to BBRC. At Colon Street, they heard gunshots behind them and the blaring siren of a police
car. They explained that since they were detention prisoners, they had to evade meeting the police. They heard
more gun shots. Upon reaching BBRC, the gates were closed, so they drove to the old airport. On their way back to
BBRC several police cars blocked them and arrested them. SPO4 Eleazar Abrigana frisked him and took the .38
service revolver from his waist.Abriol also testified that he surrendered his service firearm to the BBRC
Administrative Officer when he was served a warrant of arrest for murder in Criminal Case No. CBU-28843.
However, the handgun was defective and it was returned to him for repair by Armscor, and upon repair he handed it
over to the BBRC armory. The armorer returned it to him since there was no place to keep it. He said that although
he was a detention prisoner, he had yet to be discharged from the service. He was assigned guard and escort
duties by the warden.19 Abriol said that on the day of the incident he was, as a BBRC jailguard, authorized to carry
his service firearm.20 He presented a Memorandum Receipt21 authorizing him to carry the government-issued .38
revolver.22On the witness stand, Astellero and Dosdos narrated a similar version of the incident as did Abriol. Both
vehemently denied having any knowledge of the two .45 caliber pistols found by PO3 Cue in the "Jiffy." 23The trial
court found appellants' version of the incident neither convincing and credible and, as earlier stated, it believed the
prosecution's version. Petitioners' were convicted of the offenses charged.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution's evidence, which is mainly circumstantial, sufficient to convict appellants for
murder and violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:

YES. Circumstantial evidence is that which indirectly proves a fact in issue. For circumstantial evidence to
be sufficient to support a conviction, all the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the
theory that the accused is guilty of the offense charged, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that
he is innocent and with every other possible, rational hypothesis, except that of guilt. 51 An accused can be convicted
on the basis of circumstantial evidence where all the circumstances constitute an unbroken chain leading to one fair
and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the culprit. 52 In our assessment,
the prosecution's evidence constitutes an unbroken chain of events leading to the inevitable conclusion of guilt on
the part of appellants. First, the fatal shooting of Alejandro Flores occurred at around 11:50 P.M. of June 5, 1993 in
front of the ABS-CBN compound in Cebu City. The gunman, who was tall and thin, alighted from a red "Jiffy,"
pumped several bullets into the prone victim, and got back aboard the "Jiffy" which then sped towards Leon Kilat
Street. Second, eyewitness Romeo Sta. Cruz, Jr.'s description of the gunman as "tall and thin" perfectly matches the
physique of appellant Abriol. Third, PO3 Alexander Rustela, who was close to the crime scene, heard the gunshots
and ran towards the place where the sound of gunshots emanated. A red "Jiffy" with three persons aboard whizzed
by him and abruptly turned at Leon Kilat Street. After Sta. Cruz, Jr. informed him that the gunmen were aboard a red
"Jiffy," Rustela boarded patrol car No. 201, radioed an alarm, and commenced a pursuit of the fleeing vehicle. Police
car no. 208 received the alarm, and on turning into Leon Kilat Street, encountered the speeding red "Jiffy." They
immediately chased the "Jiffy" but failed to catch it. Police cars Nos. 208 and 205 cornered the vehicle in front of the
Don Bosco building near BBRC. PO2 Gerald Cue, on patrol car no. 205 fired a warning shot at the vehicle and
directed all those aboard to disembark. Three men got out, with their hands raised. SPO1 Abrigana, on patrol car
no. 208 and PO2 Cue approached the trio. Abrigana frisked the man who was seated in the front passenger seat,
who turned out to be appellant Abriol, and recovered from his waist a .38 caliber revolver with six empty shells. Cue
searched the red "Jiffy" and found two loaded .45 caliber pistols under the front seat where Abriol had sat. Other
police officers immediately went to the crime scene where they found the victim barely alive. PO3 Seville retrieved
four .45 caliber slugs and two deformed slugs at the spot where the victim was shot. The autopsy of the victim's
remains showed that he died of cardio respiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to gunshot
wounds. A deformed metal jacket of a .38 caliber slug was recovered from the corpse. Ballistics tests showed that
the bullets and cartridges had identical individual characteristics with those of the test bullets and cartridges. Paraffin
tests conducted on each of the appellants, one day after the incident, revealed that all were positive for gunpowder
residues. The subject firearms were also chemically examined and found positive for gunpowder residue. Before the
shooting incident, appellants were seen at Navales' house until around 7:30 P.M., when they left aboard Navales'
red "Jiffy" with Astellero driving, Abriol in the front passenger seat, and Dosdos in the back seat. 53 Appellants' seating
arrangements were exactly the same, several hours later, after they were pursued and cornered by police cars near
BBRC. Appellants admitted that they dropped by the Navales residence at around 7:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. These
unbroken chain of events prove not only appellants' identities but also their participation and collective responsibility
in the murder of Alejandro Flores. They reveal a unity of purpose and concerted action evidencing their conspiracy
to kill him. Against this matrix of facts and circumstances, appellants' bare denials cannot stand. Their story of
chasing a red "Jiffy" is merely a disingenuous diversion of no evidentiary value for the defense. On their conviction
for illegal possession of firearms, appellants contend that the handguns and ammunition allegedly taken from them
by the police officers were illegally seized. They assert that the police had no warrant to effect a search and seizure,
such that these illegally seized firearms were inadmissible as evidence, and it was error for the trial court to admit
them. As to the illegal possession of firearms, to sustain a conviction for violation of P.D. No. 1866, the prosecution
must prove two elements of the offense: (1) the existence of the subject firearm; (2) the fact that the accused who
owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess it. 65 These the
prosecution did. It presented a .38 caliber revolver with serial number PO8445, a .45 caliber pistol with serial
number PGO 13506 Para Ordinance, and a .45 caliber pistol with serial number 52469. The .38 caliber handgun
was recovered from appellant Abriol, while the two .45 caliber automatics were found and seized from under the
front passenger seat of appellants' vehicle. SPO4 Aquilles Famoso of the Cebu City PNP Metropolitan District
Command's Firearms and Explosive Unit testified that appellants were not listed as licensed firearm owners in Cebu
City.66 The prosecution also presented a certification from P/Senior Inspector Edwin Roque of the Firearms and
Explosives Division of PNP Headquarters at Camp Crame, Quezon City that appellant Abriol is not licensed to hold
any firearm; that the .45 caliber pistols were unlicensed; and that a certification from the PNP Firearms and
Explosives Office attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm, proves beyond reasonable doubt the
second element of illegal possession of firearm. 67All told, on the charge of illegal possession of firearms, no
reversible error was committed by the trial court when it found appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt. GUILTY,
appellants Albert Abriol, Macario Astellero, and Januario Dosdos are hereby found GUILTY of murder, qualified by
treachery, with the special aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearms.

12. G.R. No. 130963 November 27, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MARIANO PASCUA, JR. @ "PEDRO" & JOHN DOES, accused,
MARIANO PASCUA, JR. @ "PEDRO", accused-appellant.

FACTS:

On November 14, 1992, at about 6:00 in the evening, prosecution witness Sanita Quiming (Sanita), wife of
the victim, Ernesto Quiming (Ernesto), was gathering dry clothes in the yard of their house at Doña Imelda, Diffun,
Quirino when a man arrived looking for the house of the barangay captain. She answered "none sir" because she
saw that the man was holding a gun with his two hands. Then the man inquired about Ernesto and she replied that
he was attending a prayer meeting at Barangay Malayod together with their three children but they will soon be
back. Suddenly the man pointed his gun at her and pushed her inside the house. She was told to keep quiet and
was threatened that her children will be killed if she talked. Upon entering the house, Sanita was surprised to see
three other armed men pointing their guns at her two children. One of them, whose face was covered with a bonnet,
spoke and Sanita was startled when she heard the voice because it sounded familiar. For a moment, Sanita
surreptitiously stared at the man with the bonnet and she became apprehensive when she recognized him to be
herein accused-appellant because of the eyes, eyelids, nose, mouth, and beard which were not covered. She
knows accused-appellant well because they have been neighbors ever since he was a child. Sanita also knows
accused-appellant as the person who threw a hand grenade at Ernesto during a barangay meeting. However, she
pretended not to recognize accused-appellant. The man who approached Sanita in the yard told her that they want
to get the .38 caliber gun of Ernesto. When she told him that she did not know anything about it, herein accused-
appellant got angry, insisted that Ernesto had a gun and forced her to bring it out. At this point, two of the Quiming
children, Aileen and Elizabeth, arrived from the prayer meeting. The two were almost near the fence of the house
when they heard somebody whistle from behind. When they looked back, a man poked a gun at them and ordered
them to go inside the house and keep quiet. Aileen recognized accused-appellant though he was wearing a bonnet
since his face was not totally covered. She has known accused-appellant from childhood and the latter's house is
only 300 meters away from them. Not long after, her brother Jonathan followed. Sanita stood up and peeped
through the jalousy of the window, it was then that she saw Ernesto walking towards the house, around ten meters
away from where she was standing. A man coming from the waiting shed located along the road going to their
house followed Ernesto and suddenly shot him on the right arm. Ernesto fell to the ground facing downward. Upon
seeing this, accused-appellant and his three companions immediately ran outside. One of them shot Ernesto a
second time. Accused-appellant fired the third shot that hit Ernesto on the head. Ernesto's shoulder shook and then
his body turned limp. Sanita was so stunned that she kept jumping helplessly. The five malefactors hurriedly ran
away. Thereafter, Sanita and her children rushed to Ernesto but he was no longer moving. They brought him to the
Quirino Provincial Hospital where he was declared dead on arrival. A few hours after the incident, several barangay
officials and members of the PNP went to the house of Sanita to investigate. When asked if she knew the identity of
the assailants, she said "nobody had killed my husband except the one who threw a hand grenade at my husband."
On November 27, 1992, Aileen and Elizabeth executed their joint affidavit. 4According to Sanita, during a meeting of
barangay officials on August 30, 1992, Ernesto, a barangay captain, and accused-appellant, a barangay
councilman, had a misunderstanding and the latter threw a hand grenade at the former. When the hand grenade did
not explode, accused-appellant tried to shoot Ernesto twice inside the latter's yard but failed. Sanita was present
when the first shooting incident happened.Three days after the death of Ernesto, accused-appellant and his family
left their house at Doña Imelda, Diffun and moved to Ricarte Norte, Diffun. Sanita testified that she spent
P20,000.00 for the burial of Ernesto. Prosecution witness Leslie Chambers-Maalat, a forensic chemist at the PNP
Crime Laboratory Service in Camp Crame, Quezon City, testified that the paraffin casts taken from both hands of
accused-appellant gave positive result to the tests for gunpowder nitrates because a blue reaction was produced.
She concluded that accused-appellant fired a gun. She said that matches, cigarettes and fertilizers can also test
positive for nitrate and produce a blue reaction just like gun powder nitrate. However, she explained that matches
and cigarettes produce positive result for nitrate only which is different from gunpowder nitrate. Also, the blue
reaction produced from nitrate contained in the former does not have dots and tails whereas the blue reaction
produced by gunpowder nitrate has dots and tails. The defense relied mainly on denial and alibi. Accused-appellant
testified that in the afternoon of November 14, 1992, he went to Barangay Sta. Cruz, Benito Soliven, Isabela with his
wife and two children to attend the wedding of the daughter of his cousin. On the night of November 15, 1992,
accused-appellant was informed by his uncle about the killing of Barangay Captain Ernesto Quiming. The following
day, November 16, 1992, accused-appellant was at the parking area in Diffun when two policemen approached him
and invited him to the police station for questioning. At the police headquarters, the Station Commander asked him if
he already knew what happened to Ernesto and he answered that his Uncle Fred told him about it the night before.
Accused-appellant was informed that he is a suspect in the killing because he was the person last known to have a
grudge against the victim. He was then brought to the Crime Laboratory Service in Cauayan, Isabela to undergo
paraffin test. That night, accused-appellant slept at Ricarte Norte and only his wife and children went home. Since
then, accused-appellant has never returned to Doña Imelda, Diffun. As to the aforementioned meeting, accused-
appellant alleged that it was Ernesto who shot him first and he only fired back. He stated that the matter was settled
in October 1992 when he asked for forgiveness from Ernesto in the presence of the barangay officials. Since then,
he did not have any misunderstanding with Ernesto anymore.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution’s witnesses are credible.

HELD:

YES. It is an established rule that when the issue concerns credibility of witnesses, appellate courts
generally will not overturn the findings of the trial courts. The latter courts are in the best position to ascertain and
measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of
testifying, demeanor and behavior in court. In the case at bar, we find no basis to depart from the rule. 7In an attempt
to discredit the accuracy of the paraffin test conducted on him, accused-appellant testified that while waiting for his
paraffin test, he smoked a cigarette which he lighted with a match. Accused-appellant failed to recite the complete
testimony of the forensic chemist relevant to the issue. Such selective quotation is unethical and will not exculpate
accused-appellant. The ability to determine whether an individual has fired a firearm is of great significance in the
investigation of both homicides and suicides. Thus, over the years a number of tests have been developed in an
attempt to fill this need. The first of such tests was the "paraffin test" also known as the "Dermal Nitrate" or
"diphenylamine test." In this test, the hands were coated with a layer of paraffin. After cooling, the casts were
removed and treated with an acid solution of diphenylamine, a reagent used to detect nitrates and nitrites that
originate from gunpowder and may be deposited on the skin after firing a weapon. A positive test was indicated by
the presence of blue flecks in the paraffin. Although this test may give positive results on the hands of individuals
who fired weapons, it also gives positive results on the hands of individuals who have not fired weapons because of
the widespread distribution of nitrates and nitrites in our environment. 9 Thus, nitrates can also be found in many
other materials, including cigarette smoke, urine, fertilizers, and other kinds of chemicals such as oxidizing
agents.10To be sure, negative gunshot residue results do not conclusively mean that a subject did not fire a gun, and
positive gunshot residue results do not prove someone fired a gun either. Thus, this test for residue on skin has
been challenged in the courts and fell into disfavor and disuse because of the ambiguity in conclusions whether an
individual fired a weapon or not.11Be that as it may, the result of the paraffin test conducted on accused-appellant in
the case at bar still proves that he tested positive for gunpowder nitrates. The allegation of accused-appellant that
he smoked while waiting for his test is of no consequence. According to witness Dr. Chambers-Maalat, the blue
reaction produced by nitrate coming from cigarettes and matches has a different characteristic from the blue
reaction produced in gun powder nitrate, in that the former does not have dots and tails which are present in the
latter. It bears to stress too that the fact that accused-appellant fired a gun is corroborated by the convincing,
straightforward and categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The stubborn truth is that accused-
appellant came from Doña Imelda, Diffun before going to Barangay Sta. Cruz. We are not convinced that it was
physically impossible for him to be in Doña Imelda at the time of the incident considering that it is only around four
hours drive going to Barangay Sta. Cruz. The trite defenses of alibi and denial proffered by accused-appellant
cannot prevail over the positive and categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses. For this defense to
prosper, it must preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the accused-appellant to be at the locus
criminis at the time of the incident.13Prosecution witnesses Sanita and Aileen Quiming positively identified accused-
appellant as the one who fired the third and last shot and killed the victim Ernesto. Although accused-appellant was
wearing a bonnet, his face was not totally covered because his eyes, nose, mouth and beard were exposed. Sanita
and Aileen were also able to recognize accused-appellant through his voice and gestures. Identification by the
sound of the voice of the person identified is sufficient and acceptable means of identification where it is established
that the witness and the accused had known each other personally and closely for a number of years. 14 It is not
disputed that the prosecution witnesses and accused-appellant have been longtime neighbors ever since the latter
was a child. Besides, the house was illuminated by a kerosene lamp. Second, when the police and barangay
officials arrived at their house on that fateful day, Sanita told them that "nobody killed my husband except the one
who threw a hand grenade to my husband." When accused-appellant testified in court, he openly admitted that he
threw a hand grenade at the victim during a meeting of barangay officials sometime in August 1992. It is patently
obvious that Sanita was referring to none other than accused-appellant when she made that statement. During her
cross examination, Sanita aptly explained that she intentionally withheld the name of the real culprit because she
feared that accused-appellant might escape and hide. Delay or vacillation in making an accusation does not impair
the credibility of the witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. 15 Her apprehension was not absolutely
baseless. Indeed, three days after the November 14 incident, accused-appellant left his house and moved his family
to Ricarte Norte. On that day, November 16, 1992, accused-appellant was invited to the police headquarters and
was informed by the Station Commander of Diffun that he was a suspect in the killing of Ernesto Quiming. It is a
well-entrenched doctrine that, without satisfactory explanation, flight is a clear and positive evidence of guilt. 16It
bears to stress that of the five malefactors, it was only herein accused-appellant who was wearing a bonnet. This is
hardly surprising. Accused-appellant is a barangay councilor and everybody in the barangay knows him. He had to
make sure that he will not be exposed and that it will be difficult to recognize him. And true enough, in trying to
impugn the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the defense made capital of the fact that the face of the
assailant was covered with a bonnet. We accord greater weight however to the straightforward testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses that it was accused-appellant who shot the victim on the head. The testimonies of
prosecution witnesses Sanita and Aileen Quiming were clear, direct and categorical. Their recollection of the
gruesome event remained steadfast and unperturbed even under the grueling cross examination by the defense.
GUILTY.

13. G.R. No. 129933 February 26, 2001

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelle,

vs.
FEDERICO BALTAZAR y PIMENTEL alias "TODONG", accused-appellant.

FACTS:

At around 9:30 o'clock in the evening of November 16, 1994, witness Rodney Hallegado and the deceased
Reynaldo Gardose went to the ricefield of Lilia Hallegado in Brgy. Malagab-I, Cuartero, capiz to bring rice seedlings.
On their was home, the two agreed to have a drink at Rodney's house. Reynaldo told Rodney that he would first
drop by his house to ask for his wife's permission. Rodney then agreed to wait for him to at the day care center
some twent (20) meters away from Reynado's house. While Reynaldo was talking with his wife, Perla Gardose, and
asking for the latter's permission, somebody from outside their house called him. Perla got a lamp and opened the
door to see who was calling her husband. She saw two persons outside. She easily identified one of them as
appellant Federico Baltazar, a resident of the same barangay and whom she knew since childhood. She, however,
failed to recognize the other person who was standing in the dark. She asked appellant what his purpose was, and
the latter told her that he and Reynaldo then went down the house and walked with the two other men through the
feeder road. Perla watched them walk away until she heard their baby cry. She went inside the house and breast-
fed the baby until she almost fell asleep. A few minutes later, she heard a gunshot. She got so afraid, so she just laid
down back with her baby. That evening, her husband did not return home. Meanwhile, Rodney, who was waiting
inside the day care center, saw appellant, accompanied by another man, arrived at Reynaldo's house and called
Reynaldo. He later saw Reynaldo come out of the house and walk with appellant through the feeder road. Reynaldo
was ahead of appellant. Suddenly, he saw appellant drew a firearm from his waist and shot Reynaldo when the
latter was about to turn to his right. The latter fell down. Fearing that appellant might see him, Rodney hid at the
back of the day care center and went home through the forested area. The following morning, Perla woke up feeling
that something wrong had happened. She went to the feeder road nat, there, saw her husband lying face down
already lifeless. She hurriedly went home, told her children that their father was already dead. On that same
morning, she, accompanied by Rodney Hallegado, went to the poblacion and reported the incident to the police.
Reynaldo Gardose sustained gunshot wounds and died of massive hemmorrhave (p. 39, TSN, July 15, 1995)." 5On
the other hand, accused-appellant interposed denial and alibi as his defense. According to him and his wife,
Luzviminda Baltazar, they were together in the ricefield in the afternoon of November 16, 1994. From the ricefield
they went home and had supper at 6:00 o'clock in the evening. Accused-appellant stayed in the house until the
following morning when at around 8:00 o'clock, a policeman and a CAFGU member arrived at their house and
invited him to the poblacion for questioning. The third witness for the defense, Captain Angela Baldevieso, a forensic
chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Services, testified that she received a request on November 21, 1994 from the
officer-in-charge of the Cuartero Police Station to determine the presence of gunpowder nitrates on the cast taken
from the hands of the accused-appellant. She explained that the hands of the accused-appellant were applied with
melted parafinn wax which when dry, is used to determine the presence or absence of gunpowder nitrates. The test
she conducted on November 21, 1994 yielded a negative result on the presence of gunpowder nitrates on the
paraffin cast taken from the hands of accused-appellant. The RTC found the accused, FEDERICO BALTAZAR Y
PIMENETEL, a.k.a. 'TODONG', GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF Murder for shooting to death with
treachery, Reynaldo Gardose.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not THE HONORABLE TRIAL COMMITTED A SERIOUS, SUBSTANTIAL AND REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF THE ALLEGED EYEWITNESS WAS AMPLY
CORROBORATED BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE WIFE OF THE VICTIM WHEN THERE ARE MATERIAL
DISCREPANCIES IN THE SUBSTANCE OR THEIR TESTIMONIES.
 2. Whether or not THE NEGATIVE RESULTS OF THE PARAFFIN TEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN
APPRECIATED AS AN AID TO SHOW THE INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED

HELD:

1. NO. The trial court gave full faith and credence to the testimony of eyewitness Rodney Hallegado, observing
in detail his demeanor, conduct and attitude on the witness stand. The Court observed his demeanor at the
stand, the spontaneity of his answers, and his candor, and finds no reason to doubt the truth of his
eyewitness account of the crime. There is nothing conflicting about his testimony that may affect his
credibility. In fact his testimony was corroborated by Perla Gardose, the victim's wife, particularly that portion
when the accused fetched his victim with an unidentified person that night of November 16, 1994, a few
minutes before he shot him. He relived before the Court the horror of seeing his co-worker and relative shot
to death by accused, as well as his helplessness to prevent the crime. The Court finds in him the quality of
an unbiased witness who came forward to simply tell what he actually saw that fatefull night of November
16, 1994.This Court believes that he was in a position and had the opportunity to identify the accused as the
assailant. There are circumstances and compelling reasons to support this stand. He was just five (5)
meters away from where the crime was committed. The accused and this witness are both for a long time.
Not only that, they are related to each other. They had no grudge against each other for this witness to
impute so grave a crime against the accused."8As often stressed by this Court on the point of credibility of
witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses, in the
absence of proof that some fact or circumtance of substance has been overlooked, or its significance
misinterpreted which, if properly appreciated would affect the disposition of the case. 9 Having heard the
witnesses and observed their deportment on the stand, the trial judge is in a better position to resolve such
question.10 We have examined the records and find no reason to depart from this well-settled rule. The
presence of personal motives on the part of a witness to testify in favor of the victim and against the accused
should be supported by satisfactory proof in order that his testimony may be considered biased. 19 The
records are barren of any satisfactory proof to show such bias on the part of Rodney. This Court cannot
reverse a judgment of conviction based on accused-appellant's suspicion that Rodney was interested in
working the land himself to the exclusion of accused-appellant. Third, the inconsistencies referred to by
accused-appellant in the testimonies of Rodney and Perla refer to minor and insignificant details which do
not destroy their credibility. Accused-appellant points to the conflicting versions in the testimonies of Rodney
and Perla as to the incidents, which transpired the morning after the killing. He points out that Rodney
testified that early in the morning after the killing. He points out that Rodney testified that early in the
morning after the tragic incident, Rodney called for the victim's wife before thay went together to the spot
where the victim lay lifeless. The wife, however, said that she discovered the death of her husband allk by
herself when she focused her sight on the feeder road where she saw her husband. These inconsistencies
refer to minor details and collateral matters which do not affect the substance, veracity or weight of their
declaration as to what happened on the night of the killing. As the trial court aptly pointed out, Rodney's
testimony was corroborated by Perla Gardose, "particularly that portion when the accused fetched his victim
with an unidentified person that night of November 16, 1994, a few minutes before he shot him." If at all, the
discrepancies poited out by accused-appellant serve to add credence and veracity to the candid and
spontaneous testimonies of Rodney Hallegado and Perla Gardose.

2. NO. While accused-appellant tested negative for gunpowder nitrates, forensic chemist Angela Baldeviesco
testified that a paraffin test in not conclusive owing to several factors including wind direction, using a glove ,
firing at a hard object, using a long barrel gun or a low caliber gun and profuse perspiration. 20Indeed, the
Court has held that, "the negative findings of the paraffin test do not conclusively show that a person did not
discharge a firearm at the time the crime was committed for the absence of nitrates is possible if a person
discharged a firearm with gloves on, or if he throroughly washed his hands thereafter. 21 We agree with the
trial court that with the inconclusive result of paraffin tests, that is, that an accused may or may not have
fired a gun, the positive identification of an eyewitness that accused-appellant shot the victim prevails and
cannot be overcome by the negative result of a paraffin test. GUILTY.