PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V.

ERNESTO SAGANA Y DE
GUZMAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 208471, August 02, 2017
LEONEN, J.:

DOCTRINE:
The custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, for proper
disposition in the following manner: (1) The apprehending team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

FACTS:
Police officers in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency acted on a tip
by a confidential informant and carried out a buy-bust operation in Sagana's residence at
Muslim Tondaligan, Dagupan City. After a body search on Sagana, PO3 Salonga recovered
the marked money and retrieved five (5) more plastic sachets of shabu. PO3 Salonga
marked the articles with his initials, "LCS." Accordingly, he made the confiscation receipt
before delivering Sagana to the police station. He was later found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt in for selling and delivering shabu weighing 0.12 gram to a poseur buyer in violation
of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a violation in the change of custody contravention to the
requirement of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
RULING:
Yes. Every person who takes possession of seized drugs must show how it was handled and
preserved while in his or her custody to prevent any switching or replacement." In a number of
drug cases, this Court ruled that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimonies of the
persons who had direct contact with the confiscated items without ample explanation casts
doubt on whether the allegedly seized shabu were the very same ones presented in the court.

The prosecution has the "burden of establishing the identity of the seized items." Considering
the sequence of the people who have dealt with the confiscated articles, the prosecution failed
to justify why three (3) other significant persons were not presented as witnesses. These
persons were the desk officer who supposedly recorded the incident in the police blotter, the
investigator who prepared the request for examination, and the police officer who received the
articles in the laboratory. "In effect, there is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the
exhibits inasmuch as it failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the exhibits.

The significant lapses committed, as well as their failure to explain their non-compliance with
the directives of the law, cast doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti. With these
circumstances, this Court acquits accused-appellant Sagana as his guilt was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. DOMINADOR UDTOHAN Y
JOSE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 228887, August 02, 2017
MENDOZA, J.:

DOCTRINE:
Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 provides: (b) Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to
other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age,
the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and
Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or
lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious
conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion
temporal in its medium period.

FACTS:
On September 11, 2011, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, at the house of accused, he
molested the minor (11 years old) AAA by caressing and touching her vagina. AAA did not
tell anyone about accused's bestial acts against her because the latter had threatened her
that he would eject her family from his house and he would not feed them.

On the following day, when AAA was at school, she revealed her ordeal to her teacher who
was then suspicious of her odd behavior. On that same day, accused’s live-in-partner
disclosed to BBB that she saw him insert his finger into AAA's vagina. BBB immediately
went to AAA's school to verify the information. Thereat, BBB sought the help of AAA's
teacher and they went to the barangay to lodge a complaint. The barangay referred them to
the police station.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of acts of lasciviousness.
RULING:
Yes. Section 5 Article III of R.A. No. 7610 provides that when the victim is under 12 years of
age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under the RPC, but the penalty shall be that
provided in R.A. No. 7610.19 Lascivious conduct is defined as "the intentional touching,
either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or
buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person,
whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or
arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person."

In this case, the conduct of accused-appellant in intentionally touching and caressing the
genitals of AAA constituted an act of lasciviousness. He must be punished under the
prescribed penalty of R.A. No. 7610 as AAA was below 12 years of age at the time of the
incident. The aggravating circumstance of relationship must also be taken into
consideration.

The Court finds that accused-appellant is guilty of acts of lasciviousness under the RPC in
relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610.

EVELYN L. MIRANDA, PETITIONER, V. SANDIGANBAYAN AND THE OMBUDSMAN,

RESPONDENTS.
G.R. Nos. 144760-61, August 02, 2017
MARTIRES, J.:

DOCTRINE:
The elements of Violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 are as follows: a) The accused
is a public officer; b) That he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the
government; and c) That such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government.
FACTS:
Sometime in August 1990, Nava, the Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS)
Region XI Director, and his school superintendents met to discuss an allotment advice in
the amount of P9.36 million and intended for the nationalized high schools in the region, be
sub-allotted instead to the divisions and be used to procure science laboratory tools and
devices (SLTDs). It was further agreed that the public bidding be dispensed with for the
reason that the procurement had to be undertaken before the end of calendar year 1990;
otherwise, the allotment would revert to the national fund.

COA Regional Office No. XI created an Audit Team for the purpose of conducting a special
audit on the releases made by the DECS Region XI to its different divisions involving the
P9.36 million allotments. The team claimed in their affidavit, that the DECS-Davao Oriental
procured the SLTDs at prices higher by 64% to 1,175% than the prevailing price causing
the government to lose P398, 962.55; hence, a violation of Sec. 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019, COA
Circular Nos. 78-84 and 85-55A, and DECS Order No. 100.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused violated the provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.

RULING:
No.
The elements of Violation of Sec. 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019:
a) The accused is a public officer;
b) That he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and
c) That such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the
government.

The presence of the first and second elements is settled. As to the third, the Sandiganbayan
primarily anchored on the report and the testimony of Soriano its declaration that the
subject transactions were grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. It
ruled that based on the re-canvass conducted by the team on the eight (8) items involved in
the transactions, the prices of the SLTDs procured from D'Implacable exceeded the
prevailing market prices by as much as 64% to 1,175%; thus, were overpriced.

It must be stressed that, pursuant to COA Circular No. 85-55A, the term "excessive
expenditure" pertains to the variables of price and quality. As to the price, the circular
provides that it is excessive if "it is more than the 10% allowable price variance between
the price for the item bought and the price of the same item per canvass of the auditor."
Undoubtedly, what was required to be canvassed was the very same item subject of the
assailed transaction. Evaluated against this COA definition, it cannot be validly maintained
that the prices of D'Implacable were excessive considering that the items bought by DECS-
Davao Oriental were obviously not the very same items "canvassed" by the team.

Obviously, the element that the transaction must be grossly and manifestly
disadvantageous to the government was not sustained by the testimonial and documentary
evidence of the People. "Manifest" means that it is evident to the senses, open, obvious,
notorious, unmistakable, etc. "Gross" means "flagrant, shameful, such conduct as is not to
be excused." On the one hand, "disadvantageous" is defined as unfavorable, prejudicial.
Assessed against these definitions, we cannot see how the assailed transactions in these
cases could have been disadvantageous to the government when, at the very least, the
evidence of the prosecution only confirmed that sample SLTDs were secured by the team
from three different divisions of Region XI, but not from DECS-Davao Oriental which was
the subject of its audit; and that SLTDs, at a unit each, were purchased from Berovan and
AMESCO.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOHN PAUL CERALDE Y
RAMOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 228894, August 07, 2017
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

DOCTRINE:
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, 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.

FACTS:
On July 23, 2011, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area to conduct an entrapment
operation on Ceralde. Shortly after, Ceralde arrived and handed three (3) plastic sachets of
suspected marijuana leaves to the poseur-buyer, who, in turn, gave Ceralde the marked
money, consequently Ceralde was apprehended. He then secured the remaining three (3)
confiscated plastic sachets of marijuana leaves from SPO1 Yanes and told him to "go
ahead." PO3 Delos Santos immediately marked all four (4) plastic sachets at the place of
arrest and in the presence of Ceralde, and subsequently, brought the latter, together with
the marked money and the confiscated plastic sachets, to the police station for further
investigation and proper documentation.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld Ceralde's conviction for illegal sale and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING:
No. 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 as 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. But after a judicious study of the case, the Court
finds that deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule were unjustified, thereby
putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized
from Ceralde. Records reveals that while the prosecution was able to show that the seized
items were properly marked by PO3 Delos Santos immediately upon their confiscation at
the place of the arrest and in the presence of Ceralde, the same was not done in the
presence of any elected public official and a representative from the DOJ and the media.

Neither did the police officers provide any other explanation for their non-compliance, such
as a threat to their safety and security or the time and distance which the other witnesses
would have had to consider. Thus, since the prosecution failed to provide justifiable
grounds for non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, as well
as its IRR, the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Ceralde
were already compromised.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, V. NOEL GO CAOILI ALIAS "BOY

TAGALOG", RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 196848, August 8, 2017
TIJAM, J.:

DOCTRINE:
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 are as follows: (1)
the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said
act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse; and (3) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
FACTS:
The victim, AAA, testified that on October 23, 2005, at 7:00p.m., her father, Caoili, sexually
molested her at their house located in Barangay JJJ, Municipality of KKK, in the Province of
LLL. Caoili kissed her lips, touched and mashed her breast, inserted the fourth finger of his
left hand into her vagina, and made a push and pull movement into her vagina with such
finger for 30 minutes. AAA disclosed to the guidance counselor at AAA's school, the sexual
molestation and physical violence committed against her by her own father. She
accompanied AAA to the police station to report the sexual and physical abuse. AAA also
executed a sworn statement regarding the incident before the Municipal Mayor.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of acts of lasciviousness under R.A. No. 7610.

RULING:
Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610 does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for
profit, but also one in which a child is coerced to engage in lascivious conduct. To repeat,
intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It is sufficient that some compulsion
equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended
party.

It cannot be denied that AAA, who is only a little over 14 years old at the time the offense
was committed, was vulnerable and would have been easily intimidated by an attacker who
is not only a grown man but is also someone exercising parental authority over her. Even
absent such coercion or intimidation, Caoili can still be convicted of lascivious conduct
under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 as he evidently used his moral influence and
ascendancy as a father in perpetrating his lascivious acts against AAA. It is doctrinal that
moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation.

It bears emphasis, too, that consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5 of
R.A. No. 7610. The mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct
with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the
offense because it is a malum prohibitum, an evil that is proscribed.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. RUBEN "ROBIN" BONGBONGA

Y NALOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 214771, August 09, 2017
CAGUIOA, J:

DOCTRINE:
"Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancée and worse,
employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust.” A love
affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her
will." The fact that a woman voluntarily goes out on a date with her lover does not
give him unbridled license to have sex with her against her will.

FACTS:
AAA, a minor of about 16 years of age at the time she testified declared that on two (2)
different occasions, the accused, armed with a kitchen knife, by means of force and
intimidation have sexual intercourse with her, and on another occasion, perform lascivious
conduct upon her by kissing her lips, mashing her private parts against her will and
without her consent, to the damage and prejudice.

Thereafter, a medical examination conducted on AAA revealed deep healed lacerations in

AAA's genitalia, which allegedly could have been caused by strenuous activities, the
insertion of a foreign body (e.g., a hardened penis), or a viral disease.

Pleading his innocence, Ruben denied the accusations against him on the claim that he and
AAA were live-in partners and that their sexual encounters were consensual. Ruben further
claimed that the charges against him were filed at the instance of AAA's Aunt, possibly due
to feelings of disapproval as Ruben was still married to another woman.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the conviction of Ruben for two (2) counts of
Rape and one (1) count of Acts of Lasciviousness.

RULING:
No. AAA categorically declared that she and appellant were not lovers prior to the three
incidents. Moreover, out of fear and intimidation employed upon AAA by her father, she
was forced to live with appellant against her will. Evidently, the cohabitation was dictated
upon the victim out of fear and not free consent and even if they cohabited after the
incidents, it will not negate the fact that AAA was raped by appellant. "Definitely, a man
cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancée and worse, employ violence upon her on
the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."

It should be emphasized that the Court has consistently disfavored the "sweetheart theory"
defense for being self-serving in nature. Being an affirmative defense, the allegation of a
love affair must be substantiated by the accused with convincing proof. It bears noting that
Ruben's defense was corroborated only by his daughter, Ruby Ann, which effectively
weakened the defense, being supported by a mere relative of the accused.

To be sure, that a man and a woman are living in the same house is not enough to rule out
the bestial act of forced sexual intercourse. Here, the fact of cohabitation is immaterial to
the charge of rape as it only took place after the alleged incidents. In People v. Bautista, the
Court aptly held:

Besides, even if he and the victim were really sweethearts, such a fact would not
necessarily establish consent. It has been consistently ruled that "a love affair does not
justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will." The fact that a
woman voluntarily goes out on a date with her lover does not give him unbridled license to
have sex with her against her will.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DELIA SAUNAR, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 207396, August 09, 2017
LEONEN, J.:

DOCTRINE:
A miniscule amount of dangerous drugs alleged to have been taken from the accused
is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. In these cases, "law
enforcers should not trifle with the legal requirement to ensure integrity in the chain
of custody of seized dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia.

FACTS:
In the buy-bust operation conducted by the Special Operation Team of the 5th Regional
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group on the illegal drug activities of a certain "Lolita"
Saunar they have recovered the marked money and a Nokia 5210, which they confiscated.
No photograph of the seized items was taken at the crime scene. Saunar was then brought
to Camp Simeon Ola for investigation.

Upon reaching Camp Simeon Ola, PO2 Montales prepared a seizure receipt, which Saunar
refused to sign. Meanwhile, Capt. Dalanos invited representatives from the media and the
Department of Justice and a barangay official to witness the marking and inventory.

PO2 Montales marked the two (2) plastic sachets with her initials "AOM1" and "AOM2."
Afterwards, the seized items were inventoried and then placed in a larger transparent
plastic bag. The marking and inventory were both done in the presence of the three (3)
witnesses from the media, the barangay, and the Department of Justice. PO2 Montales
brought the seized items to the crime laboratory for scientific examination. The contents of
the two (2) plastic sachets weighed 0.0496 grams and 0.0487 grams. They tested positive
for shabu.
While the police officers were preparing the necessary documents for Saunar's
prosecution, the seized cellular phone received several calls and text messages from
different people who were looking for Saunar to place P1,000.00 and P2,000.00 worth of
orders on something called "LADA." PO2 Montales introduced herself as Saunar's sister and
tried to set up a meeting with them. However, the callers refused to talk to anyone but
Saunar.

For her defense, Saunar asserted that she was merely framed-up. She testified that on the
day of the alleged incident, the authorities raided her house looking for shabu. However,
they only found her cellphone. Although the police officers found nothing, Saunar was
brought to Camp Simeon Ola and was forced to sign a seizure receipt, which indicated that
two (2) sachets of shabu were taken from her. Saunar did not sign this seizure receipt.

ISSUE:
Whether the guilt of accused Saunar for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 was
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:
No.
The crime of sale of illegal drugs is consummated "the moment the buyer receives the drug
from the seller." The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the transaction
actually took place by establishing the following elements: "(1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment."

Aside from this, the corpus delicti must be presented as evidence in court. In cases
involving dangerous drugs, "the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself." Hence, its
identity and integrity must likewise be established beyond reasonable doubt. The
obligation of the prosecution is to ensure that the illegal drugs offered in court are the very
same items seized from the accused. This would entail the presentation of evidence on how
the seized drugs were handled and preserved from the moment they were confiscated from
the accused until their presentation in court. Non-compliance with this requirement
creates doubt regarding the origin of the dangerous drugs.

In this case, only 0.0496 grams and 0.0487 grams or a total of 0.0983 grams of shabu were
allegedly taken from accused-appellant. Such a miniscule amount of drugs is highly
susceptible to tampering and contamination.

A careful review of the factual findings of the lower courts shows that the prosecution
failed to discharge its burden of preserving the identity and integrity of the dangerous
drugs allegedly seized from accused-appellant.

The prosecution failed to establish who held the seized items from the moment they were
taken from accused-appellant until they were brought to the police station. The failure of
the prosecution to strictly comply with the exacting standards in Republic Act No. 9165, as
amended, casts serious doubt on the origin, identity, and integrity of the seized dangerous
drugs allegedly taken from accused.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOCELYN CARLIT Y GAWAT,

ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 227309, August 16, 2017
VELASCO JR., J.:

DOCTRINE:
As a rule, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of 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.
FACTS:
PO3 Christian Carvajal was assigned at the Dagupan City Police Station when, on 26
February 2011, he was tasked to act as poseur buyer in the buy bust operation against
Jocelyn Carlit in the squatters’ area in Mayombo District of the city. Their office received
information that Carlit is engaged in illegal activities, hence, the buy bust operation. During
their preparation, they recorded the buy bust money to be used in the police blotter. The
officer said that the Accused and his supervising officer were both present when he
prepared the confiscation receipt which was signed by a DOJ representative although there
was no media. At the police station, the police blotter, request for laboratory examination
and coordination with the PDEA as well as his affidavit were prepared. The police officer
also narrated that he was the only one in sole possession of the specimen from its seizure
up to the station where it was only shown to the investigator and thereafter brought by
him to the crime laboratory, where it was received by PSI Myrna Malojo.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the courts a quo correctly convicted Carlit for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs.

RULING:
No, since the prosecution failed to prove every link in the chain of custody.
There are links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation,
namely: "first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and, fourth,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to
the court.

The substance of PO3 Carvajal's testimony was that he was the poseur-buyer who received
the sachet containing the dangerous drug from Carlit, and that he was the only arresting
officer who handled the same until it was turned over to PSI Todeñ o at the PNP Crime
Laboratory. PSI Todeñ o confirmed receiving the narcotic substance from PO3 Carvajal for
testing, and added that her specimen was then handed to one PO2 Manuel, the evidence
custodian, for safekeeping. This is where the chain breaks.

Notably, PO3 Carvajal did not offer any explanation for these lapses. Rather, he admitted
that they were no longer able to coordinate with the media and the local official because he
was instructed by their team leader to immediately bring Carlit to the police station. This
does not constitute justifiable ground for skirting the statutory requirements under Section
21 of R.A. 9165.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. JALIL LAMAMA, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 188313, August 23, 2017

BERSAMIN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165

addresses the contingency of the law enforcers being unable to literally meet the
requirements - like marking, photographing and inventorying at the place of the
arrest and seizure - by providing the saving mechanism that "non-compliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items."

FACTS:

In the morning of October 29, 2004, an informant told PO2 Velasquez and PO1 Ventura of
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Dagupan City Station, that Lamama was
selling shabu in Barangay Pinmaludpod, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.
Subsequently, the buy-bust team brought Lamama to the PDEA Station in Dagupan City
where he was booked and investigated. The seized items were then marked and
inventoried in detail. Chief Insp. Abrahano signed the written request for laboratory
examination by the PNP Crime Laboratory in Urdaneta City of the contents of the seized
three plastic sachets. In her chemistry report dated October 30, 2004, Forensic Chemist
confirmed that the three plastic sachets contained shabu with an aggregate weight of 102.5
grams

The accused contended that his arrest was invalid because of the following: (1) no picture
of him with the seized shabu was taken immediately after his arrest; (2) no physical
inventory of the seized shabu was made in his presence or that of his counsel; and (3) the
marking of the seized shabu was made inside the PDEA office, not at the place of seizure

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused is validly charged with violation of RA 9165.

RULING:

Yes. The protest of Lamama is unwarranted. The law does not expressly require that the
marking, photographing and inventorying be always made at the site of the buy-bust
operation and that the elected officials be always from the place where the buy-bust arrest
occurred.

It is also relevant to note that Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 9165 addresses the contingency of the law enforcers being unable to
literally meet the requirements - like marking, photographing and inventorying at the place
of the arrest and seizure - by providing the saving mechanism that "non-compliance with
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items." As the terms of
the saving mechanism state, the justifiable grounds for the non-compliance must be
explained during the trial.

There were valid reasons for conducting the marking, photographing and inventorying at
the PDEA Station instead of at the place of the arrest. It was PO2 Velasquez who explained
that he and the rest of the buy-bust team had to leave the scene immediately after the
arrest of Lamama to avoid a commotion or reprisal inasmuch as Lamama, who was a
notorious person, could have cohorts around. PO2 Velasquez added that the documents
and instruments needed for the marking, photographing and inventorying were inside the
PDEA Station.

PO2 Velasquez also clarified that the buy-bust team had sought the assistance of officials of
Barangay Tebeng instead of the officials of Barangay Pinmaludpod in order to avoid the
buy-bust operation against Lamama from being leaked to the latter's cohorts.

More importantly, the integrity of the drugs seized from the accused as evidence was
preserved. A careful consideration of the records indicates that the chain of custody of the
drugs was unbroken.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE. VS. ABUNDIO M. SARAGENA,

ACCUSED-APPELLANT

G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017

LEONEN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

When the quantity of the confiscated substance is miniscule, the requirements of

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, must be strictly complied with.

The prosecution's failure to present the police officer who acted as the poseur-buyer
in the buy-bust operation, which allegedly involved 0.03 grams of shabu, coupled
with the improbability that the two (2) apprehending police officers witnessed the
transaction at night time, engenders reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.
The prosecution's failure to sufficiently establish the chain of custody in accordance
with the law further amplifies the doubt on accused's guilt.

FACTS:

A buy-bust team was formed, upon a receiving an information that a certain "Tatay" was
selling illegal drugs at Sitio Sindulan, Brgy. Mabolo, Cebu City.

After the alleged transaction was done, the under covered officers then rushed to the scene
and introduced themselves as police officers. They conducted a body search on accused-
appellant and recovered the buy-bust money. Accused-appellant was brought to the police
station.

PO1 Misa retained custody of the plastic pack, while SPO1 Paller took the buy-bust money
from accused-appellant. At the police station, PO1 Misa turned over the plastic pack to their
team leader, SPO3 Magdadaro, who then marked it with the letters "AS." The incident was
logged in the police blotter.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the chain of custody of the corpus delicti was strictly observed.

RULING:

No, the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the shabu allegedly recovered from the
accused violated the chain of custody rule. The police officers' lapses are numerous and
unjustified that there are serious grounds to doubt the preservation of the integrity of the
corpus delicti.

There was no showing that accused-appellant signed a receipt of the inventory of the pack
of shabu, that it was marked in his presence, that photographs were taken, or that he was
made to sign a confiscation receipt relating to the seized pack of shabu.

This Court emphasizes that "ostensibly approximate compliance" does not suffice; rather,
there must be actual compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Not doing so is
tantamount to a failure to establish the corpus delicti, a crucial element of the crime
charged.

This case arose from a buy-bust operation. While a buy-bust operation can indeed enable
authorities to uncover illicit transactions otherwise kept under wraps, this Court has
recognized that such an operation poses a significant drawback—that is, "it is susceptible
to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion."

To avert such possibility, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the
dangerous drug offered during trial was the same that was bought during the buy-bust
operation. The chain of custody rule under Republic Act No. 9165 fulfils this rigorous
requirement.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO GERONIMO Y
AGUSTINE, ALIAS "NANDING BAKULAW", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 180447, August 23, 2017

BERSAMIN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

The State, not the accused, has the heavy burden of justifying at the trial the lapses or
gaps in the chain of custody. Without the justification, the chain of custody is not
shown to be unbroken; hence, the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti was
not preserved. The acquittal of the accused should follow.

FACTS:

A confidential informant arrived and reported to them that a certain alias Nanding
Bakulaw, who was later identified as appellant Fernando Geronimo, was engaged in illegal
drug activities victimizing young individuals in Interior Villa Sanchez, Palatiw, Pasig City.
After the buy-bust operation had been conducted and that the accused was body searched
and the illegal substance was confiscated, PO1 Sabo placed her initials "JAS" on the
confiscated shabu.

Appellant was later brought to the Rizal Medical Center for physical examination.
Thereafter, appellant was brought to the PNP headquarters. SPO2 Layno made a letter-
request for laboratory examination of the specimen and sent it to the Pasig City Police
Station, which were turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Per
Chemistry Report No. D1698-o3E, issued by Forensic Chemist Forro, the specimen was
confirmed positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a
prohibited drug.

Subsequently, the accused-appellant was then charged in the RTC with a violation of
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the required chain of custody under Republic Act No. 9165 was observed.
RULING:

No. Here, the Prosecution tendered no explanation of why none of the members of the buy-
bust team had seen to the taking of any photograph of the seized shabu immediately after
the arrest, or even afterwards. Likewise, there was no explanation given as to why they did
not ensure the presence of an elected official, or member of the media, or representative of
the Department of Justice during the entrapment and confiscation of the evidence. We
should specially note at this juncture that the requirements were not unknown to the
members of the buy-bust team, whom we must presume to have been well-instructed on
the law demanding the preservation of the links in the chain of custody. They should then
have dutifully seen to the compliance with the requirements, and if their compliance was
not full, they should at least have the readiness to explain the step or steps omitted from
such compliance.

The procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team as herein noted underscored the
uncertainty about the identity and integrity of the shabu presented and admitted as
evidence against the accused-appellant. They highlighted the failure of the Prosecution to
establish the chain of custody, by which the incriminating evidence would have been
properly authenticated. The unavoidable consequence of the non-establishment of the
chain of custody was the serious doubt about the shabu presented as evidence at the trial
being really the shabu supposedly seized from the accused-appellant.

In every prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or

shabu prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165, the State carries the heavy burden of
proving the elements of the offense, failing in which the State would not discharge its basic
duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If the State does not
establish the corpus delicti, such as when the dangerous drug subject of the prosecution is
missing, or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise
grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in
court, then the crime is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, any substantial
gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused-appellant deserves acquittal due to
the reasonable doubt that the lapses in the chain of custody engendered.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, VS. PAROK LUMUDAG Y RACMAN @
AKMAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 201478, August 23, 2017

BERSAMIN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

The State bears the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Any doubt regarding the evidence of guilt is resolved in favor of
the accused.

FACTS:

A confidential informant reported to the Chief of the District Anti-Illegal Drug (DAID) Office
the alleged drug peddling activities of a certain alias Akmad along Quiapo, Manila. A team
was made to conduct a buy bust operation against the accused. After the transaction was
done, PO2 Donato marked the confiscated drug "DAID". Afterward, accused was brought to
the police station. The confiscated drug was submitted to the Manila Police District Crime
Laboratory (MPDCLO) for laboratory examination. The forensic chemist, Police Senior
Inspector (PSI) Calabocal, conducted a qualitative examination. PSI Calabocal found that
the specimen tested positive for shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited
drug.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the arrest of the accused was valid.

RULING:

No.

The Prosecution must establish the concurrence of the following elements for the
conviction of the accused for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No.
9165, namely: (a) that the transaction or sale took place between the accused and the
poseur-buyer; and (b) that the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is
presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.

The records reveal that the buy-bust team did not faithfully observe the foregoing statutory
requirements, such as performing the physical inventory and photographing of the illegal
drug immediately upon seizure and confiscation, and in the presence of a representative of
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and of any elected public official who would
then be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof. The requirements were
precisely designed by the law to prevent planting, or switching, or contamination of
evidence, and thereby secure the suspects against malicious incriminations. In the field of
drug enforcement, the need for the requirements to be literally followed, or at least to be
substantially complied with, has become all the more pronounced. By specifying the steps
to be taken for preserving the chain of custody, Congress really established firm guarantees
against false incriminations of individuals that the lawless elements among the ranks of the
law enforcers had often resorted to.

The non-disclosure of the justification by the members of the buy-bust team underscored
the uncertainty about the identity and integrity of the shabu admitted as evidence against
the accused. The unavoidable consequence of the non-disclosure of the justification was the
non-establishment of the chain of custody, which, in turn, raised serious doubt on whether
or not the shabu presented as evidence was the shabu supposedly sold by Lumudag, or
whether or not shabu had really been sold by him.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BRAHIM LIDASAN,

NHOKIE MOHAMAD, ROCKY MOCALAM, TENG USMAN, ALI MATOC, MUSLIMEN
WAHAB, JIMMY ALUNAN, ROWENA AMAL RAJID, ACCUSED, OMAR KAMIR, ALEX
DALIANO, AND BAYAN ABBAS ADIL ALIAS "JORDAN," ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

G.R. No. 227425, September 04, 2017

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

DOCTRINE:

The elements of the crime are as follows: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b)
he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c)
the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the
offense any of the following circumstances is present: i) the kidnapping or detention
lasts for more than three days; ii) it is committed by simulating public authority; iii)
any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made; or iv) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor,
female, or a public officer. Notably, the duration of detention is immaterial if the
victim is a minor, or if the purpose of the kidnapping is to extort ransom.

FACTS:

In the evening of October 30, 1998, private complainant Michelle Ragos (Ragos) was in her
family's office/residential compound in Valenzuela City which was being guarded by
security guards, when suddenly, Bansuan and two (2) companions entered her bedroom
and declared "kidnapping ito." Adil served as lookout, while the other men tied Ragos's
hands, sealed her mouth with packaging tape, ransacked all the cabinets and drawers, and
took with them cash and personal items amounting to P200,000.00. Ragos was was
transferred to a house located in Las Piñ as City, and kept in a room on the second floor
alternately guarded by several persons.

Early morning of November 7, 1998, the PAOCTF team proceeded to Quezon City to
witness the pay-off. P/Supt. Arnado saw Alunan and Adil arrive on board a motorcycle and
take the bag containing the ransom money amounting to 4.8 million pesos, from someone
inside a "Nissan Blue Bird" car. Immediately thereafter, the PAOCTF team chased the
kidnappers, resulting in a shoot-out and the eventual arrest of the kidnappers, except for
Bansuan who remained at large, while the rest were brought to Camp Crame for
investigation. On the same day, PAOCTF operatives swooped in the kidnappers' safe-house,
resulting in Ragos's rescue, as well as the arrest of other suspects.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the convictions of accused-appellants for Kidnapping for Ransom should be
upheld.

RULING:

Yes.

The elements of the crime are as follows: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he
kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of
detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense any of the
following circumstances is present: i) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three
days; ii) it is committed by simulating public authority; iii) any serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or iv) the
person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. Notably, the duration
of detention is immaterial if the victim is a minor, or if the purpose of the kidnapping is to
extort ransom.

Otherwise stated, the prosecution must establish the deprivation of liberty of the victim
under any of the above-mentioned circumstances coupled with indubitable proof of intent
of the accused to effect the same. There must be a purposeful or knowing action by the
accused to forcibly restrain the victim coupled with intent.

In this case, the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the
aforesaid elements as it is undisputed that accused-appellants, among others, illegally
detained the victim Ragos against her will for the purpose of extorting ransom from her
family. Moreover, the collective testimonies of prosecution witnesses, such as victim Ragos
and state witness Bauting, positively identified the perpetrators to the kidnapping -
including accused-appellants Adil, Daliano, and Kamir - as well as narrated in detail the
events that transpired from Ragos's abduction up to her rescue. These easily trump
accused-appellants' denial and alibi which are inherently weak defenses that cannot be
accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by credible witnesses.

EOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMANTE PADLAN Y LEONES @

BUTOG, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 214880, September 06, 2017

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

DOCTRINE:

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610 defines lascivious conduct as

the the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia,
anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an
intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of
any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic
area of a person.
FACTS:

"AAA" is a nine-year old girl from Meycauayan, Bulacan. She testified that on multiple
occasions, she was defiled by the accused. She recounted the following:

On the first occasion, while she was sleeping inside their house, she was surprised when
Padlan woke her up and asked her to stand up. Padlan then touched her vagina and
continued caressing it, and then he took "AAA's" clothes off and inserted his penis inside
"AAA's" vagina. Subsequently Padlan withdrew his penis and inserted his finger inside
"AAA's" vagina instead. Thereafter, "AAA" put her clothes back on. She did not report the
incident to her mother because of Padlan's threat to kill her mother if she did.

The second incident occurred in the evening of September 27, 2005 when Padlan called
"AAA" and told her that her mother, "BBB," wanted her to go to a certain Ate Sharon to
borrow money. But when they reached an aratiles tree along the way, Padlan stopped
"AAA" and told her to lie down on the ground. Padlan then removed "AAA's" shorts and
underwear and inserted his penis inside her vagina. After Padlan was finished satisfying his
lust, "AAA" went home by herself.

The following day on September 28, 2005, "AAA" was sleeping in her sister's bedroom
while her mother was gathering kangkong outside. "AAA" was again roused from her sleep
when she felt Padlan touching and rubbing her vagina. "AAA" quickly ran towards her
mother to prevent Padlan from going any further with his advances.

The next day, "AAA" complained to "BBB" about the pain she felt in her vagina. "BBB"
examined "AAA's" vagina and saw that it was swollen and had pus. When asked who was
responsible for her swollen vagina, "AAA" told her mother about what Padlan had done to
her. "BBB" then confronted Padlan about "AAA's" claims. According to "BBB," Padlan
admitted that he raped "AAA" twice.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Padlan was validly charged of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness.

RULING:

Yes. In addition to the elements under Art. 336 of the RPC, the following requisites for
sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610, must also be established to
wit:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
 1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.

2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse.

3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

In the present case, the Information in Criminal Case No. 275 7-M-2005 specifically stated:
(1) that "AAA" was a nine-year old minor at the time of the incident; and (2) that Padlan
committed acts of lasciviousness against "AAA" by touching her vagina. The Court finds that
the elements of lascivious conduct under Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610 have been sufficiently
alleged in the Information and duly proven during trial.

Further as shown by "AAA's" testimony, she was able to narrate in a clear and candid
manner how Padlan raped and molested her. Being a 9-year old rape victim, her testimony
deserves full weight and credence. "A girl of tender years, who barely understands sex and
sexuality, is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is
not true." Moreover, the defense did not present any improper motive on "AAA" why she
would impute a serious charge of rape against Padlan.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MANUEL LIM CHING, Accused-

Appellant

G.R. No. 223556, OCTOBER 9, 2017

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

DOCTRINE:

Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking
of the seized drugs, the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination of the evidence
that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the said drugs that were evidence
herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the
incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses
would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.
FACTS:

After the conduct of surveillance on the suspected illegal drug activities of Ching, a buy-
bust team proceeded to Ching's house and upon arrival thereat, PO1 Lim approached Ching
and bought a sachet of suspected shabu worth ₱500.00, handing as payment the marked
money. As soon as PO1 Lim received the sachet, he gave the pre-arranged signal and the
other team members, who were stationed more or less 15-20 meters from the target area,
approached, causing Ching to run and hide in his room.

The team followed Ching inside his house where he was eventually arrested for selling
shabu. A subsequent search of the premises produced the numerous sachets of drugs and
paraphernalia.

The sachets of shabu were sealed and labeled "MLC-1 to MLC-9" after which, they were
brought to the Northern Samar Police Provincial Office, Camp Carlos Delgado, where
P/Supt. Tonog signed four (4) Receipts for Property Seized as witnessed by barangay
officials.

Days after, P/Supt. Tonog delivered the drug specimens to the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) office in Tacloban where it was received and acknowledged
by a certain P03 Bautista, who, in tum, turned over the items on the same day to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory Office.

Upon arraignment, Ching pleaded not guilty and proceeded to deny the charges leveled
against him. He claimed that on said date, he was in his house with his nephews and was
about to leave when policemen, including P/Supt. Tonog, together with some barangay
officials, arrived and roamed around his residence. He later saw one of the men insert a
plastic inside the chicken cage and thereafter, gathered some things and placed them on
top of a table. Not long after, a pedicab arrived and he was brought to the police station and
detained. Ching further claimed that he was very close with P/Supt. Tonog, but the latter
bore personal grudges against him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ching is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 11, 12, and 5,
Article II of RA 9165.
RULING:

No. While the fact of marking of the seized items was clear from such testimony and the
inventory evidenced by the attached Receipt for Property Seized, the same was glaringly
silent as to the taking of photographs and the conduct of an inventory in the presence of a
representative from the media and the DOJ. In the case of People v. Mendoza, the Court
stresses that "without the insulating presence of the representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the
seized drugs, the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination of the evidence that had
tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure
and confiscation of the said drugs that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus
adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the
insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of
custody."

Second, it is well to note that the delivery of the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory
was made way beyond the prescribed twenty-four (24) hour period from seizure. To
reiterate, the drugs/paraphernalia were seized during the buy-bust operation on June 29,
2003, but were delivered to the PDEA and the PNP crime laboratory only ten (10) days
later, or on July 9, 2003. In People v. Gamboa, the Court explained that "when police officers
do not turn over dangerous drugs to the laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from
seizure, they must identify its custodian, and the latter must be called to testify. The
custodian must state the security measures in place to ensure that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated items were preserved," which did not take place in this
case.

All told, the breaches of the procedure contained in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165
committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State,
militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. Case law states
that the procedure enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive
law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as
an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. For indeed, however, noble the
purpose or necessary the exigencies of our campaign against illegal drugs may be, it is still
a governmental action that must always be executed within the boundaries of law.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JONAS GERONIMO Y PINLAC,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 225500, September 11, 2017

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

DOCTRINE:

The chain of custody rule outlines 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

FACTS:

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
Officers immediately organized a buy-bust operation, which was coordinated with the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office and the Philippine National
Police (PNP). After the mock transaction was done, they subsequently frisked Geronimo's
pockets where they have 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.

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.

RULING:

No.

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

An examination of the records 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.

Accordingly, the plurality of the breaches of procedure committed by the police officers,
unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt against the accused, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti had been compromised. It is well-settled that the procedure in Section 21 of RA
9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural
technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.
As such, since the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance with
Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, as well as its IRR, Geronimo's acquittal is
perforce in order.
CELERINO CHUA ALIAS SUNTAY, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 172193, September 13, 2017

BERSAMIN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

The violence against or intimidation of persons perpetrated by the accused to

commit a robbery under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code renders the accused
also liable for carnapping committed by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons as defined and punished by Section 14 of Republic Act 6539 involving the
taking of a vehicle to transport the stolen goods.

FACTS:

On October 24, 1993 at around 2:50 o'clock in the morning, Teresa Legaspi-Ravago,
accompanied by a helper, was about to leave for work at the Maymart Market in
Meycauayan, Bulacan. Upon opening the door, she was immediately pushed inside the
house by accused Arnold Lato.

Arnold tied the hands of Teresa and the helper with straw and demanded jewelry and cash
that the Ravagos earned as broker's commission from the sale of a fishpond.

Said two (2) accused carted off their television sets, Sony Betamax sets, Karaoke, compact
disc, assorted pieces of jewelry, VHS player and cash. The said stolen items were loaded in a
stainless owner type jeep registered in the name of Teresa's mother, Valentina Legaspi, but
given to the private complainants in 1990.

Prior to the incident appellant Celerino Chua, together with his legitimate family resided
about twenty (20) meters away from complainants' house. After the incident, they left.
Before Chua went into hiding he wrote the Ravagos to keep quiet about the incident,
otherwise, harm would befall their family.
A couple from the place where the appellant resided gave information that the jeep was
brought by the appellant Chua to Bani, Pangasinan. The jeep was recovered at Jessie Tugas'
motor shop in Pangasinan.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of carnapping in violation of Republic Act 6539 (Anti-
Carnapping Act of 1972)

RULING:

Yes. Despite his physical absence from the scene of the crime, Chua was liable as a principal
by inducement, and also for the violence committed by Lato and Reyes during the
execution of the crimes.

The foregoing circumstances were sufficient and competent to prove that Chua
masterminded the robbery and carnapping. As the mastermind, he directly induced Lato
and Reyes to commit the robbery and the carnapping. His inducement of them was not
merely casual but influential and controlling. Lato and Reyes could not have committed the
crimes without Chua's inducement and plotting. In that capacity, Chua was a principal by
inducement within the context of Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a crime, and decide to commit it. For an accused to be validly held to
conspire with his co-accused in committing the crimes, his overt acts must tend to execute
the offense agreed upon, for the merely passive conspirator cannot be held to be still part
of the conspiracy without such overt acts, unless such passive conspirator is the
mastermind. In that respect, it is not always required to establish that two or more persons
met and explicitly entered into the agreement to commit the crime by laying down the
details of how their unlawful scheme or objective would be carried out. Conspiracy can also
be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense is perpetrated, or can be
inferred from the acts of the several accused evincing their joint or common purpose and
design, concerted action and community of interest. Clearly, the State successfully proved
the existence of a conspiracy among the three accused.

Being the mastermind, Chua was as responsible for the consequences of the acts committed
by Lato and Reyes, the principals by direct participation. This is because of the conspiracy
among the three of them. The information had properly charged them as co-conspirators in
robbery and carnapping. Once their conspiracy was established, the act of each of the
conspirators became the act of all. Indeed, Chua could not escape responsibility for the acts
done by his co-conspirators. The very nature of the planned robbery as a crime that
entailed violence against persons warranted holding Chua fully responsible for all the
consequences of the criminal plot.

LEONARDO P. CASONA, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

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

BERSAMIN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

Too much reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official

duties on the part of the arresting officers in the prosecution of drug-related offenses
is unwarranted if the records show noncompliance with the affirmative safeguards
prescribed to preserve the chain of custody of the contraband. The presumption of
regularity applies only when there is no showing of non-compliance.

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.

After the mock transaction with the accused was done, the group approached the accused
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.
Accused, 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.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused was validly charged of the crime of Violation of Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act 9165.

RULING:

No.

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, 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.

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.

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 our view, however, such reliance was legally
unwarranted. To begin with, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties should not even be relied upon because there was concrete and undeniable evidence
of lapses committed by the arresting officers in their compliance with the affirmative
safeguards. The presumption has been erected only for convenience, to excuse the State
from the duty to adduce proof that official duties have been regularly performed by its
agents, because of the physically impossible or time-consuming task of detailing all the
steps establishing the regular performance of official duties. Moreover, it would be
unconstitutional to place a higher value in the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties - a mere tool of evidence - than in the more substantial
presumption of innocence favoring the petitioner as an accused - a right enshrined no less
than in the Bill of Rights. Preferring the former would ignore the experience in the streets
that actually bears witness to so many illegal arrests and unreasonable incriminations of
the innocent.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VS. WILLINGTON RODRIGUEZ Y

HERMOSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT

G.R. No. 211721, September 20, 2017

MARTIRES, J.:

DOCTRINE:

The elements of trafficking in persons are as follows: (1) the act of recruitment,
transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipts of persons with or without the
victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders; (2) the means
used which include "threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability
of the person, or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another; and (3) the purpose of trafficking is
exploitation which includes "exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms
of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or
sale of organs."

FACTS:

At around 11:00 P.M. on 8 August 2006, PO1 Escober was at the police station preparing
for the police operation called Oplan Bugaw for the purpose of eliminating prostitution on
Quezon Avenue in Quezon City. PO1 Escober, designated to pose as customer, was
accompanied by P02 Bereber as his backup, and Police Inspector P/lnsp. Lopez.
While parking their vehicles at the target area, PO1 Escober was flagged down by
Rodriguez who allegedly offered the sexual services of three (3) pickup girls. PO1 Escober
readily gave Rodriguez the pre-marked ₱500.00 bill as payment. This signaled his backup
to enter the scene and aid in the arrest. PO1 Escober then retrieved the pre-marked bill.

Thereafter, the officers brought Rodriguez and the three (3) pickup girls to the police
station.

In his defense, Rodriguez denied that he had offered a girl for sexual purposes to PO1
Escober. He said that he was only selling cigarettes on Quezon Avenue when he was
arrested by the police officers. He only found out that he was being accused of human
trafficking after he was brought to the City Hall.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused was validly charged of the crime of qualified trafficking in
persons.

RULING:

No.

The elements of trafficking in persons are as follows: (1) the act of recruitment,
transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipts of persons with or without the victim's
consent or knowledge, within or across national borders; (2) the means used which include
"threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of
power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over
another; and (3) the purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "exploitation or
the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services,
slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs."

A careful review of the records shows that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of
these elements beyond reasonable doubt, nor did we find the second and third elements
proven by the prosecution.

We must remember that suspicion, no matter how strong, must never sway judgment. It is
pivotal in criminal cases that we evaluate the evidence for the prosecution against the
required quantum of evidence in criminal cases. When there is reasonable doubt, the
evidence must be interpreted in favor of the accused. Under the equipoise rule, if the
evidence admits two interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt, and the other
with innocence, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt and should be acquitted.

Apart from the deficient testimony of PO1 Escober, the prosecution did not bother to
present the testimonies of the alleged victims. Their testimonies that they were sexually
exploited against their will through force, threat or other means of coercion are material to
the cause of the prosecution. These women would be in the best position to say that
Rodriguez had recruited or used these women by giving them payments or benefits in
exchange for sexual exploitation.

To rely solely on the testimony of PO1 Escober as basis for convicting Rodriguez would run
riot against logic and reason, and against the law. To sustain this whimsical reasoning
would encourage anyone to accuse a person of "trafficking in persons" or of any other
crime, without presenting the material testimony of the alleged victim. Given that PO1
Escober's testimony is missing on material details, the prosecution should have presented
in court at least one of the three (3) women that indeed they were sexually exploited or
recruited by the accused for prostitution as alleged in the information. Even a neophyte
police officer of the lowest rank would be stupefied why PO1 Escober and the two (2) other
police officers allegedly with him failed to get the statements of the alleged victims while
they were under police custody after the entrapment operation.

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

Accused-Appellant.

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

LEONEN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

The marking and identification of the seized dangerous drug is an essential part of
the chain of custody. Absent this step, a gap is created which casts a shadow of doubt
on the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug presented as evidence, creating
reasonable doubt, which must be resolved in favor of the accused.

FACTS:
April 13, 2006, a buy bust operation was planned to capture Cabellon in the act of selling
drugs. The 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.

Cabellon ran and hid inside a nearby house and the police officers followed him. 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.

That same date, a sachet marked with "SCC 04/13/06" was turned over to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory for examination, and subsequently the forensic chemist
confirmed that the heat-sealed plastic sachet of white crystalline substance tested positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused was validly charged of violations of Republic Act No. 9165.

RULING:

No. 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.

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.

PO3 Bucao also testified that he turned over the unmarked seized sachet to PO3 Abellar,
who then prepared the request to the Philippine National Police for chemical analysis.
However, a careful review of the Request for Laboratory Examination dated April 13, 2006
shows that not only did it refer to a marked sachet, it was also signed by P/Superintendent
Romeo Pagal Perigo, not PO3 Abellar, who supposedly prepared it.

The prosecution utterly failed to proffer evidence on who placed the markings on the
sachet Furthermore, it also failed to account for the seized sachet's transfer from PO3
Bucao to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination,
creating another gap in the chain of custody.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JEFFERSON DEL MUNDO Y

ABAC AND MITOS LACSON-DEL MUNDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

G.R. No. 208095, September 20, 2017

MARTIRES, J.:

DOCTRINE:

As a general rule, the prosecution must endeavor to establish four links in 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 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.

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, consequently, a buy bust
operation was planned. The operation yielded four (4) plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substances from the accused.
The police officers then brought the accused to the Calapan City Police Station for booking
and further investigation. At the police station, the seized items were photographed,
inventoried, and marked by PO3 Rodil with her initials, in the presence of the accused-
appellants, Romeo Gargullo (Gargullo), a barangay kagawad, and Nicanor Ocampo, Sr.
(Ocampo, Sr.), the president of Kill Droga movement in the area.

After a qualitative examination, the substances inside the subject sachets yielded positive
results for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

ISSUE:

Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in convicting the accused- appellants despite
the prosecution's failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

No, since the buy-bust team failed to observe the proper procedure in taking custody of
confiscated dangerous drugs that Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires.

The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

While the prosecution was able to present the inventory of the confiscated items, which
was apparently prepared by PO3 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
accused-appellants and Gargullo, 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.
PO3 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.

JESUS APARENTE Y VOCALAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 205695, September 27, 2017

LEONEN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

Where the amount of narcotics seized is miniscule, a stricter adherence to the

requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is required to preserve the
evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

FACTS:

On February 13, 2006, they were at Barangay Pantok, Binangonan, Rizal, the police officers
were patrolling the area as part of surveillance operations in relation to illegal drugs and
"Video Karera" activities. They saw two (2) men, one of whom was later identified as
Aparente, in an alley. They watched as the other man handed Aparente a small plastic
sachet. They saw Aparente inspect the sachet, flicking it against the light emitted from a
street light and a lamp from a house nearby. When the police officers approached, the two
(2) men fled. Only Aparente was caught. PO1 Dela Cruz told Aparente to open his hands.
They found a small sachet with a white crystalline substance, which the police officers
confiscated. They brought Aparente to the Binangonan Police Station where a police
investigator marked the confiscated sachet with Aparente's initials. PO1 Dela Cruz then
submitted the sachet, together with its contents, to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory at Camp Crame. Prosecution witness Police Inspector and Forensic Chemical
Officer Antonieta Abillonar issued a Laboratory Report that stated that the contents of the
sachet tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the failure to explain the lack of inventory and photographing at the place
of petitioner's arrest or at the nearest police station negates the evidentiary value of the
allegedly seized narcotics.

RULING:

No.

Section 21 of Republic Act Mo. 9165 requires that:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures;

Contrary to what appellant wants to portray, the chain of custody of the seized prohibited
drug was not broken. The initials of appellant, "JBA" were placed in the transparent plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu immediately after
seizure, as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest. This was placed by the investigator in
the Binangonan Police Station where the appellant was brought for investigation. The fact
that this investigator was not identified and presented in court does not in any way cast
doubt on the integrity of the chain of custody. After all, not all people who came into
contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic
Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a requirement. As
long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been
broken, as in this case, and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs
seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the
drugs should take the witness stand.

The factual antecedents of the case reveal that the police officers immediately went to the
police station to turn over appellant and the evidence seized from. him. The police
investigator at the station then marked the confiscated plastic sachet with appellant's
initials. The plastic sachet and its contents were then submitted by PO1 Dela Cruz to the
PNP Crime Laboratory at Camp Crame, Quezon City for examination, which was conducted
by PIAFCO Abillonar.

It appears from the record that the seized drugs were not marked by the apprehending
team but by an investigating officer at the police station, an act which is not in accordance
with Republic Act No. 9165. Further, no justifiable reason for this was presented by the
prosecution.

This Court stresses that where miniscule amounts of drugs are involved, trial courts should
require more exacting compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act
No. 9165. Consequently, the trial court and the Court of Appeals should have considered
the failure of the apprehending team to mark the seized drugs immediately after seizure
and confiscation. They should also have considered that it was the investigating officer at
the police station who marked the same and not the arresting officers. The failure of the
prosecution to address this issue and to provide a justifiable reason for this are enough to
cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity of the operation.

ROLANDO DACANAY Y LACASTE, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 199018, September 27, 2017

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

DOCTRINE:

In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must
be proven with moral certainty. (1) That the accused is in possession of the object
identified as prohibited or regulated drug; (2) That such possession is not
authorized by law and, (3) That the accused freely and consciously possessed the
said drug. To warrant conviction of the accused or that animus possidendi existed
together with the possession or control of said articles.

FACTS:
On October 23, 2002, a TFAV Unit were on board an unmarked multi-cab, patrolling the
streets of Barangay Highway Hills, Mandaluyong City, when they noticed a male person,
whom Genguyon later identified as the accused, holding a plastic sachet in his right hand
and a baseball cap in his left hand. The TFAV Unit already knew petitioner for the latter had
been previously arrested several times by authorities for illegal drug possession. As the
TFAV Unit neared petitioner, the latter scurried away. Petitioner tried to throw away the
plastic sachet as he was boarding a tricycle but the members of the TFAV Unit caught up
with him.

Genguyon arrested petitioner and recovered the plastic sachet, containing white crystalline
substance, from the latter's possession. Genguyon placed his initials "RG" on the plastic
sachet. The plastic sachet, marked as "RG," was turned over to PO3 Cortes, assigned to
investigate petitioner's case. PO3 Cortes made a written request for the laboratory
examination of the contents of said plastic sachet.

P/Sr. Insp. Forro performed the laboratory examination of the contents of the plastic
sachet, she confirmed the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a
dangerous drug.

On trial, Genguyon identified in court the plastic sachet that he marked as "RG." Likewise,
P/Sr. Insp. Forro testified that she prepared the Chemistry Report No. D-2096-02E and
identified her signature appearing thereon, as well as the signatures of PC/Insp. Leslie
Chambers Maala (Maala), Chief of the Chemistry Section, and Police Superintendent
(P/Supt.) Ma. Cristina B. Freyra (Freyra), Chief of the EPD Crime Laboratory. P/Sr. Insp.
Forro stated that she was present when PC/Insp. Maala and P/Supt. Freyra signed the
Chemistry Report.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the court of appeals committed grave and reversible error when it found
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime being imputed against him.

RULING:

In prosecuting cases for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must
establish the following elements: (l) the accused was in possession of an item or object,
which was identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession was not
authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

Additionally, in the prosecution of criminal cases involving drugs, it is settled in our

jurisprudence that the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti, the body or
substance of the crime, and the fact of its existence is a condition sine qua non to sustain a
judgment of conviction. It is essential that the prosecution must prove with certitude that
the narcotic substance confiscated from the suspect is the same drug offered in evidence
before the court. As such, the presentation in court of the corpus delicti establishes the fact
that a crime has actually been committed.

Evidence for the prosecution consists of the testimonies of its witnesses, chiefly that of
Genguyon; documentary evidence, particularly, Genguyon's Sworn Statement and P/Sr.
Insp. Forro's Chemistry Report No. D-2096-02E; and the corpus delicti, the plastic sachet of
shabu confiscated from petitioner.

The prosecution then submitted in evidence the Chemistry Report No. D-2096-02E, which
confirmed that the white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet recovered from
petitioner was methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug.

The totality of the evidence satisfactorily establishes all the necessary elements for the
conviction of petitioner for illegal possession of prohibited drug.

Notably, petitioner did not offer any evidence to prove that he had authority to possess the
said drug, and it is well-entrenched that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes
prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi of the prohibited drug, sufficient
to convict an accused in the absence of satisfactory explanation.