Binaday, Khristine Ericke D.

Student No. 0001133

1. REPUBLIC VS. CA AND MOLINA (EN BANC)

G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997

FACTS:
 Roridel Molina married Reynaldo Molina on April 14, 1985 at the San Agustin Church in
Manila and they had a son.
 Roridel filed a petition for nullity of their marriage 3 years after the separation sometime
March 1987 claiming that Reynaldo had thus shown that he was psychologically incapable
of complying with essential marital obligations.
 That after a year after their son was born, Reynaldo show signs of immaturity and
irresponsibility as he preferred to spend more time with his friends, depended on his parents
for assistance, and was never honest in regard to their finances resulting in frequent quarrels
between them. 
 That she became the sole breadwinner of their family, went home to her parents in Baguio
City and the husband abandoned them weeks after the transfer.
 Reynaldo’s response to the petition is that their frequent quarrels which resulted to
separation was due to Roridel’s failure to perform her duties as a wife.
 The RTC granted Roridel’s petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage which was
affirmed by CA.

ISSUE: 
Does opposing and conflicting personality which result to inability to perform some
marital obligation constitute psychological incapacity?

RULING :
PANGANIBAN, J.
No. There is no clear showing that the psychological defect spoken of is an incapacity.  It
appears to be more of a “difficulty” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of
some marital obligations.
From their submissions and the Court's own deliberations, the following guidelines in the
interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are hereby handed down for the
guidance of the bench and the bar
1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any
doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and
against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and
our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family.
 2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must
be psychological-not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be
physical. Root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating
nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and
clinical psychologists.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the
marriage.
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or in curable
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characterological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness
must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty,
much less in will.
6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the
Family Code20as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of
these same Code21 in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital
obligation(s)must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the
text of the decision.
7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect
by our courts.
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to
appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor
General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein
his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The
Solicitor-General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such
certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for
resolution of the court. The Solicitor-General shall discharge the equivalent function of
the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095."22

Petition from the Solicitor General is GRANTED. Assailed decision reversed and set
aside. The marriage subsists and remains valid.

2. REPUBLIC vs ERLINDA MATIAS DAGDAG

G.R. No. 109975 February 9, 2001

FACTS:
 In September 7, 1975, Erlinda Matias married Avelino Dagdag and they had two children.
 Avelino would disappear for months without explanation and attend to drinking sprees with
friends and return home drunk when with the family; he forced his wife to have sexual
intercourse and if she resisted, would inflict injuries to the latter.
 He left his family again and never heard of him. Erlinda then learned that Avelino was
imprisoned for some crime, and that he escaped from jail who remains at-large at date.
 Erlinda filed for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The trial court rendered a decision declaring
the marriage void.
 The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals raising that the lower court erred in
declaring the apellee's marriage to Avelino Dagdag null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial
court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not immaturity and irresponsibility, habitual alcoholism, and a criminal
record constitutes psychological incapacity?
RULING:
QUISUMBING, J.:
Article 36 of the Family Code provides-"A marriage contracted by any party who, at the
time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization”
Taking into consideration these guidelines, it is evident that Erlinda failed to comply with
guideline No. 2 which requires that the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically
or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts, since no psychiatrist or medical doctor
testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband. Further, the allegation that the
husband is a fugitive from justice was not sufficiently proven. In fact, the crime for which he was
arrested was not even alleged. The investigating prosecutor was likewise not given an
opportunity to present controverting evidence since the trial court's decision was prematurely
rendered.
Wherefore, the present petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of the Court of
Appeals is reversed and set aside.

3. CHI MING TSOI VS. CA AND GINA LAO-TSOI

G.R. NO. 119190 JANUARY 16, 1997

FACTS:
 On 22 May 1988, Gina Lao-Tsoi and Chi Ming Choi got married. After marriage, no sexual
intercourse took place even during the honeymoon and until March 15, 1989 even if they
slept in the same bed.
 They submitted themselves for medical examinations. She was found healthy, normal and
still a virgin. Her husband’s examination was kept confidential.
 The wife claims, that the defendant is impotent, a closet homosexual, and that the defendant
married her, a Filipino citizen, to acquire or maintain his residency status here in the country
 and to publicly maintain the appearance of a normal man. She is not willing to reconcile
with her husband.
 The defendant claims that should the marriage be annulled; it is his wife’s fault. He claims
no defect on his part, as he was found not to be impotent, and any differences between the
two of them can still be reconciled. He admitted that they have not had intercourse since
their marriage until their separation because his wife avoided him. He added that his wife
filed this case against him because she is afraid that she will be forced to return the pieces of
jewelry of his mother, and, that the defendant, will consummate their marriage.
 The trial court declared the marriage void. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
court’s decision. Hence, the instant petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the non-coitus constitute as psychologically incapacity?

RULING:
TORRES JR., J.:
Yes. Senseless and protracted refusal to consummate the marriage is equivalent to
psychological incapacity. Appellant admitted that he did not have sexual relations with his wife
after almost ten months of cohabitation, and it appears that he is not suffering from any physical
disability. Such abnormal reluctance or unwillingness to consummate his marriage is strongly
indicative of a serious personality disorder which to the mind of the Court clearly demonstrates
an ‘utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage’ within the
meaning of Article 36 of the Family Code.
Petitioner further contends that respondent court erred in holding that the alleged refusal
of both the petitioner and the private respondent to have sex with each other constitutes
psychological incapacity of both. However, neither the trial court nor the respondent court made
a finding on who between petitioner and private respondent refuses to have sexual contact with
the other. But the fact remains that there has never been coitus between them. At any rate, since
the action to declare the marriage void may be filed by either party, the question of who refuses
to have sex with the other becomes immaterial.
One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is “to procreate children
based on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the
basic end of marriage.” In the case at bar, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the
parties to fulfil the above marital obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
The petition is DENIED.
 

4. LUCITA HERNANDEZ vs.CA and MARIO C. HERNANDEZ

G.R. No. 126010 December 8, 1999

FACTS:
 Lucita and Marcio met in Philippine Christian University in Dasmarinas Cavite when Lucita
was Marcio’s teacher for two consecutive semesters. They became sweethearts, eventually
got married on January 1, 1981 and had children.
 On July 10, 1992, petitioner filed before the RTC a petition seeking the annulment of her
marriage to private respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity.
 Lucita that Mario failed to perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the
management of the household devoting his time in drinking sprees with his friends. That
Mario cohabitated with another woman and had an illegitimate child. He engaged in extreme
promiscuous conduct during the latter part of 1986, got contracted gonorrhea and infected
her. That he was irresponsible, immature and unprepared for the duties of a married life.
 Mario failed to file his answer on the allegations. Public Prosecutor conducted investigation
and found no collusion between the parties.
 Prosecutor’s evidence presented that Lucita supported the family’s needs while Mario
continued studying for two more years after the marriage, supported by his parents; Mario
also had an extra-marital relation with a married woman during the early part of the
marriage. He left their conjugal home and then only child. After some time, he returned and
she accepted him. His attitude worsened when he got employed to Reynold Philippines, Inc.
That on one occasion of a heated argument, private respondent hit their eldest child who was
then barely a year old.  Private respondent is not close to any of their children as he was
never affectionate and hardly spent time with them.
 According to RTC, the fact that the circumstances mentioned by the petitioner in support of
her claim that respondent was "psychologically incapacitated" to marry her are among the
grounds cited by the law as valid reasons for the grant of legal separation (Article 55 of the
Family Code)—not as grounds for a declaration of nulity of marriages or annulment. Lucia
filed an appeal; CA denied the petition. Hence, this case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Marcio is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations?

RULING:
MENDOZA, J.:
The psychological incapacity of a spouse, as a ground for declaration of nullity of
marriage, must exist at the time of the celebration of marriage. The root cause of the
psychological incapacity must be: (a)medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in complaint,
(c) Sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. The petitioner failed
to establish the fact that at the time they were married, private respondent was suffering from a
psychological defect which in fact deprived him of the ability to assume the essential duties of
marriage.
More so, chronic sexual infidelity, abandonment, gambling and use of prohibited drugs
are not grounds of psychological incapacity of a spouse. It must be shown that these acts are a
manifestation of a disordered personality and not merely due to private respondent’s youth and
self-conscious feeling of being handsome could not constitute the psychological incapacity in
contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code.

5. BRENDA B. MARCOS vs. WILSON G. MARCOS

G.R. No. 136490 | October 19, 2000

FACTS:
 Brenda and Wilson got married twice and out of their marriage, five (5)
children were born.
 Wilson left his post in the military service in 1987. Due to his failure to engage in any
gainful employment for six (6) years, they would often quarrel which lead to physical and
sexual abuse.
 Several times during their cohabitation, he would leave their house. In 1992, they were
already living separately.
 On October 16, 1994, they had a bitter quarrel that turned violent, inflicting physical harm
on her and even on her. Brenda and the children left the house. Thereafter, Brenda filed a
petition for the declaration of nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Brenda submitted herself to psychologist, while Wilson did not.
 The RTC ruled for the nullity of their marriage, while on appeal, the CA reversed RTC’s
decision on the ground that Wilson did not submit himself to psychological evaluation as
held in the Molina case. Hence, this case was filed by Brenda.

ISSUE:
Whether or not psychological evaluation of the parties to a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage under Article 36 is a condition precedent to a finding of psychological
incapacity?

RULING:
PANGANIBAN, J.
No. Personal medical or psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement
for a declaration of psychological incapacity. The totality of the evidence presented did not show
such incapacity. Although the Supreme Court is convinced that respondent failed to provide
material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the
totality of these acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part.
Verily, The behavior of respondent can be attributed to the fact that he had lost his job
and was not gainfully employed for a period of more than six years. It was during this period that
he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral support, and even left the
family home. Thus, his alleged psychological illness was traced only to said period and not to the
inception of the marriage. Equally important, there is no evidence showing that his condition is
incurable, especially now that he is gainfully employed as a taxi driver.
Wherefore, the Petition is DENIED and assailed Decision AFFIRMED, except that
portion requiring personal medical examination as a conditio sine qua non to a finding of
psychological incapacity.
RA 9165 “COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUG ACT OF 2002”
CASES

1. PEOPLE V. BASILIO
G.R. No. 195774, February 23, 2015

FACTS:
 Pursuant to an information he received the day before, Police Senior Inspector Julian T.
Olonan organized a team to conduct a “buy-bust” operation against a certain “Kagi” who
was said to be active in the illegal sale of drugs. SPO1 Chua acting as poseur-buyer and was
thus provided with a P100-bill as purchase money.
 At about 10:00 PM the team proceeded to the target area and together with the informer,
poseur-buyer approached “Kagi,” later identified as the appellant. Appellant asked poseur-
buyer “magkano” and the latter replied “piso lang.” Appellant got the money and in turn
handed a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
The signal was given to inform backup police that the sale had been consummated.
Appellant was arrested, informed him of his constitutional rights, and brought him and the
seized item to the police station SPO1 Chua placed the marking “LBH” on the plastic sachet
and turned over the same to their investigator, PO3 Jimenez.
 Accused-appellant Basilio was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
The RTC and CA found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
 Appellant denies the accusation against him. He also questions the police officers’ non-compliance
with the requirements set forth under Section 21 of RA 9165.

ISSUE:
Did the lower courts correctly convict appellant of the offense of illegal sale of shabu?

RULING:
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
YES, appellant’s appeal is devoid of merit. To obtain a conviction for violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 involving a buy-bust operation, the following essential
elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale
and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. The delivery of the
illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate
the illegal transaction.
In the case at bar, all the foregoing elements are present. The prosecution witnesses
positively identified appellant as the seller of the substance to the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Chua, for
the sum of P100.00. The white crystalline substance presented during the trial was identified by
SPO1 Chua as the substance sold and delivered to him by appellant. The substance, when
examined by Forensic Chemical Officer PSI Reyes, tested positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu. Clearly, the prosecution has adequately and satisfactorily proved all the
elements of the offense.
Moreover, the chain of custody remained unbroken and the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized drug were preserved. The confiscated plastic sachet with white crystalline
substance was in the possession of SPO1 Chua after the buy-bust operation and apprehension of
the appellant. He then brought the same to the police station and, thereat, marked it with the
letters “LBH” which stand for appellant’s initials. Thereafter, the marked sachet and its contents,
as well as the request for laboratory examination thereof, were delivered by PO3 Jimenez to the
MPD Crime Laboratory where it was received by PSI Reyes who later confirmed that the
specimen bearing the same marking “LBH” tested positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.
Furthermore, appellant posits that the marking of the seized item at the police station
instead of at the place of seizure immediately after his arrest engendered doubt as to its identity.
Nevertheless, marking the subject item at the police station did not dent the prosecution’s case.
While R.A. No. 9165 provides for the immediate marking of the seized item, it does not specify
a time frame when and where said marking should be done. In fact, the Court had the occasion to
rule that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police
station or office of the apprehending team.
Hence, appellant’s conviction of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 is upheld.

2. DIGEST: PEOPLE V. MANUEL LIM CHING

G.R. No. 223556 October 09,2017

FACTS:
 On June 29, 2003, a buy-bust operation was planned following the surveillance on the
suspected illegal drug activities of Ching where he alleged sold worth Php 300 of shabu
to a civilian.
 Upon proceeding to the latter’s house around 4:00PM, the poseur-buyer bought from
Ching a sachet of suspected shabu worth Php 500 using marked money.
 When the signal was given and the other team members approached, Ching ran and hid in
his room. They followed him inside his house where he was eventually arrested.
 A subsequent search of the premises produced five more sachets found on different
location around the house premises; and the recovery of several drug paraphernalia in an
adjacent makeshift structure outside the house.
 The sachets of shabu was sealed and labeled witnessed by 3 barangay officials.
  10 Days after the operation, the drug specimens were delivered to the PDEA, and were
turned over on the same day to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.
 Ching was prosecuted for illegal possession of shabu, illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia, illegal sale of shabu, and for maintenance of a drug den in violation of
Sections 11, 12, 5 and 6 of RA No. 9165, respectively.
 He pleaded Not Guilty and averred that he was framed-up.
 RTC found all the elements for the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
present and was found Guity Beyond Reasonable Doubt. CA affirmed RTC rule, hence
this appeal.

 ISSUE:
Whether or not Ching is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 11, 12, 5
and 6 of RA No. 9165?

RULING:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
NO. The Court found substantial gaps as to the mandatory requirements provided under
Section 21, Art. II of RA 9165. The section provides that immediately after its seizure and
confiscation, the apprehending team shall conduct a physical inventory and photograph the
seized items in the presence of, among others, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and
the seized items must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours
from confiscation for examination.
 Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the
requirements of Section 21, Article II of 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 1064041 - provide, among others, that non-compliance with the
requirements of Section 21, Article II 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 the 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.
In People v. De Guzman,46 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-
compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are
or that they even exist.
Thus, these breaches of the procedure contained in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165
committed by the police 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.
Reversing the decision, the Court acquitted appellant.
3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANUEL GAMBOA
G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018

FACTS: 
 The accused was charged with 2 allegations on January 31, 2004, which are Illegal sale
and Illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
 A buy-bust operation, was organized against alias “Kuya” who was allegedly engaged to
rampant selling of drugs.
 The police coordinated with PDEA, prepared the marked money and the team together
with confidential informant proceeded to the area the following day.
 Gamboa allegedly handed to the informant a plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance in exchange of Php 200.
 Upon giving the signal the police rushed towards the scene and they recovered another
plastic sachet and the buy-bust money.
 PO2 Nieva immediately marked the two (2) plastic sachets and inventoried the items at
the place of arrest in the presence of appellant and a media representative. Photographs of
the confiscated items were also taken during the marking and inventory.
 Thereafter, PO2 Nieva brought appellant and the seized drugs to the police station where
PO3 Benitez prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination.
 Gamboa denied accusations against him.
 RTC found Gamboa Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt. It held that the prosecution
sufficiently established all the elements of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Possession of
Dangerous Drugs and that, there was no break in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
In addition, the RTC ruled that while a representative from the Department of Justice
(DOJ) and a barangay official were absent during the inventory, the failure to strictly
comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was not fatal since the police officers
actually sought the presence of a media man to witness the proceedings.
 Aggrieved Gamboa appealed to the CA, affirmed the RTC's ruling, finding all the
elements of the crimes charged present as Gamboa was caught in flagrante
delicto selling shabu and in possession of another sachet containing the same substance.
Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld appellant’s conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs?

RULING: 
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
No, the police officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of
custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items
purportedly seized from appellant.
Under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, 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
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy of the same.
An examination of the records reveals that the same was not done in the presence of any
elected public official, as well as a representative from the DOJ. In fact, such lapse was admitted
by PO2 Nieva. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to provide justifiable grounds or show that
special circumstances exist which would excuse their transgression, the Court is constrained to
conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from appellant
have been compromised.
In a prosecution for the sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the State carries the
heavy burden of proving the integrity of the corpus delicti failing in which, renders the evidence
for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Manuel Gamboa
y Francisco "Kuya" is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.

4. DENNIS LOAYON Y LUIS VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 232940, JANUARY 14, 2019

FACTS:       
 An Information was filed before the RTC accusing Dennis Loayon of the crime of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165.
 The prosecution alleged that, on February 24, 2010, a buy-bust team composed of police
officers from the Station 9 of QCPD conducted a buy-bust operation against “Awang.”
 Before the sale transaction between Awang and the poseur-buyer took place, Loayon
accompanying Awang shouted “Pulis yan!”  which prompted Awang and Loayon to run
away in different directions. Awang was able to elude the buy-bust team, Loayonwas
arrested. Recovered from Loayon is a plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance.
 The buy-bust team, together with Loayon, went to QCPD Station 9 where, the seized
item was marked, photographed, and inventoried in the presence of a Barangay Kagawad.
 The seized plastic sachet was then brought to the crime laboratory where, after
examination, the contents thereof yielded positive for 0.03 gram of shabu.
 The RTC found Loayon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Aggrieved,
Loayon appealed to the Court of Appeals.
 The CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that the policemen’s positive identification of
Loayon as the possessor of the seized plastic sachet, which he threw away while he was
being chased, shall prevail over the latter’s bare denials, which was uncorroborated by
other evidence. Moreover, it observed that the prosecution was able to prove the crucial
links in the chain of custody of the seized item. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUES:
 Whether Loayon is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165?
RULING:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: E.:
To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must
be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up
to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime (People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, March
14, 2018).
In this case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement as the conduct of
inventory and photography was not witnessed by representatives from the DOJ and the media.
This may be easily gleaned from the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items which only confirms
the presence of an elected public official, i.e., Brgy. Kagawad Asuncion. Such finding is also
confirmed by the testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO2 De Vera on direct and cross-examination.
In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165,, it
is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for these witnesses’ absence by presenting a
justifiable reason, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the
apprehending officers to secure their presence. While PO2 De Vera acknowledged the absence of
representatives from the DOJ and the media during the conduct of inventory and photography, he
merely offered the perfunctory explanation that “no one was available” without showing whether
the buy-bust team exerted earnest efforts to secure their attendance therein .
Wherefore, the petition is GRANTED. Decision is reversed and set aside. Accordingly,
petitioner Dennis Loayon y  Luis is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. 
5. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FRANKIE MAGALONG ANGKIE
G.R. No. 231838, March 04, 2019

FACTS: 
 Magalong was the target of a buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA, Region
1. Magalong was contacted by a confidential informant that a man wants to buy shabu
from him.
 A meeting place was agreed. A few minutes after the agents arrived at the agreed place,
Magalong arrived.
 Allegedly, Magalong handed a plastic sachet containing what appeared to be a shabu and,
in return, the poseur-buyer gave the payment.
 When Magalong noticed the boodle money, the poseur-buyer grabbed him and
introduced himself as a PDEA agent. The other team members immediately rushed to the
area. Magalong was frisked and apprised of his constitutional rights.
 The seized drug, buy-bust money, and boodle money were marked. In the presence of
Magalong, PDEA agents also conducted an inventory of confiscated items at the place of
arrest and, thereafter, prepared the Certificate of Inventory of Drug Evidence. During the
inventory, PDEA agents tried to secure the attendance of a representative of DOJ, elected
official and representative from media. They had to immediately leave the area to avoid
commotion.
  Consequently, representatives of the DOJ and media signed the certificate at the PDEA
office in Astrodome, Tapuac District, while the barangay chairman did the same at
the barangay hall of Bonuan Gueset.
 Magalong denied accusations.
 RTC find the accused Frankie Magalong Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt of the
crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld accused-appellants' conviction for the crimes
charged?
HELD:
Peralta, J.:
“As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of an illegal drug were not compromised, non-
compliance with R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR may be excused.”
In this case, all the requisites for the sale of an illegal drug were met. The links in the
chain of custody that must be established are: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the
seized illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the
illegal drug by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
(4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.
In this case, Magalong did not present any evidence to substantiate his allegation that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu presented as evidence at the trial have been
compromised at some point. Instead, the body of evidence adduced by the prosecution supports
the conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug were preserved
and safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody, starting from its seizure and confiscation
from Magalong until its presentation as proof of the corpus delicti before the RTC.
Here, IO1 Tabuyo marked the plastic sachet containing shabu, the buy-bust money, and
the boodle money immediately upon their confiscation. In the presence of Maga1ong and the rest
of the PDEA team members, he also conducted an inventory of confiscated items at the place of
arrest and, thereafter, prepared the Certificate of Inventory of Drug Evidence that was signed by
he barangay chairman at the barangay hall of Bonuan Gueset, as well as by the representatives
of the DOJ and the media, at the PDEA office in Astrodome, Tapuac District. All these are in
substantial compliance of the requirements of Section 21(1) Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items
inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and
sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be
adduced. Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact
the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.
The Court is convinced that the arresting team exerted earnest efforts to comply with the
mandated procedure, and that under the circumstances present in this particular case, the actions
of the PDEA operatives were reasonable. Based on the testimonies of IO1 Tabuyo, Inocencio,
and Ramirez, the arresting team had tried to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses
during the conduct of the buy-bust operation, but only the representatives of the media and the
DOJ responded, albeit belatedly, and the members of the arresting team had to make a judgment
call of immediately leaving the place of arrest in order to avoid commotion and ensure their own
safety.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 clearly expresses that “non-
compliance with the 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.”

RA 7610 CHILD ABUSE CASES

1. ANTONIETA LUCIDO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 217764, August 07, 2017

FACTS:
 On or about the month of December, 2007 in Leyte, the accused, allegedly to beat with the
use of a belt, pinched, and strangulated the child victim [AAA], who was then eight (8)
years old.
 A physical examination conducted confirmed AAA's story. Doctor’s Findings: Multiple
abrasions on different parts of the body secondary to pricking, nail marks/scratches, there is
redness on the peripheral circumference of the hymen, no hymenal laceration noted and
there is weakness of (L)knee joint upon walking.
 Appellant denied that she pinched, beat and hit AAA and that she inserted her finger into
AAA's vagina. She claimed that she usually cleaned AAA's vagina and bathed her with hot
water.
 Accused offered to plead guilty to Less serious Physical injuries,
 RTC and CA find accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not appellant is guilty of child abuse?

RULING: 
LEONEN, J.:
Yes. As defined in the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether it is
habitual or not. Section 10 of RA 7610 provides that any person who shall commit any other acts
of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the
child's development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as
amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its minimum period.
In this case, AAA's testimony was corroborated by Dr. Abierra. First, there were
"multiple abrasions on different parts of [AAA's] body." Additionally, he observed a "redness on
the peripheral circumference of the hymen," which could have been caused by a hard pinching.
Finally, there was an evident "weakness on the left knee joint," which could have been caused by
the victim falling to the ground or being beaten by a hard object. Strangulating, severely
pinching, and beating an eight (8)-year-old child to cause her to limp are intrinsically cruel and
excessive. These acts of abuse impair the child's dignity and worth as a human being and infringe
upon her right to grow up in a safe, wholesome, and harmonious place.
The crime under Republic Act No. 7610 is malum prohibitum. Hence, the intent to
debase, degrade, or demean the minor is not the defining mark.

2. CHRISTOPHER FIANZA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No. 218592, Aug 02, 2017

FACTS: 
 Sometime in July 2010, AAA, who was then 11 years old, was asked by appellant to
wash his clothes. Thereafter, petitioner asked her to go with him to the kamalig. Thereat,
they proceeded to the second floor where petitioner removed his pants and briefs, lied
down, and ordered AAA to hold his penis and masturbate him. After ejaculating, he put
on his clothes, and gave P20.00 to AAA who, thereafter, went home.
 On November 30, 2010, while AAA was home, petitioner called her to his house, and
asked her to clean the same. After she was done sweeping the floor, they proceeded to the
second floor of the kamalig. Thereat, petitioner again removed his pants and briefs, lied
down, and ordered AAA to fondle his penis. After the deed, he gave P20.00 to AAA
who, thereafter, went home.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not petitioner is guilty with violations of Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610
given his alibi?

RULING:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
At the outset, the Court deems it appropriate to correct the appellation of the crime with
which petitioner was charged to Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC
considering that the victim, AAA, was only 11 years old at the time of the incidents. The
definition of Lascivious act under Section 2 (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting
and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases most describe the facts mentioned.
In instances where the child subjected to sexual abuse through lascivious conduct is
below twelve (12) years of age, the offender should be prosecuted under Article 336 of the RPC,
but suffer the higher penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period in accordance with
Section 5 (b), Article III of RA 7610, which pertinently reads: SECTION 5. Child Prostitution
and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
In the present case, records disclose that on two (2) occasions in July 2010 and on
November 30, 2010, appellant induced AAA, an 11-year-old minor, to hold his penis and
masturbate him. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts
themselves and the environmental circumstances.
 WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated Resolution Court of
Appeals are hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is entered finding petitioner Christopher Fianza
a.k.a. "Topel" (Fianza) GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of Acts of
Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5 (b), Article
III of Republic Act No. 7610.

3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. NELSON NUYTE

G.R. No. 219111, March 12, 2018

FACTS: 
 An Information was filed charging appellant as follows: on May 3, 2004 in the Province
of Albay, the accused, with lewd and unchaste design, by means of intimidation,
coercion, influence and other consideration, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have sexual intercourse with "AAA", 14 years old, against her will and
consent, act which debased and degraded her intrinsic worth and dignity as a human
being, to her damage and prejudice.
 Appellant claimed theirs was a consensual sex. In fact, their sexual congress happened
several times, usually at noontime in the same grassy place where AAA tethers the cows.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not appellant is guilty of rape and/or child abuse?

RULING: 
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Yes. Infliction of physical injury is not an essential element of rape. AAA’s narrative
established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of rape. Appellant had carnal knowledge of
"AAA" through force and intimidation, and without her consent and against her will. The
"sweetheart theory" claimed by appellant is futile. It was never substantiated by the evidence on
record. The alleged love letter supposedly written by "AAA" was never presented in court.
In this case, the victim was 14 years old when the crime was committed. Following
People vs. Abay, appellant may either be charged with violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or
with rape under Article 266-A of the RPC. In such instance, the court must examine the evidence
of the prosecution, whether it focused on the specific force or intimidation employed by the
offender or on the broader scope of coercion or influence to have carnal knowledge with the
victim.
In the present case, the evidence of the prosecution in no uncertain terms focused on the
force or intimidation employed by appellant against "AAA" under Article 266-A (1)(a) of the
RPC. The prosecution, through the steadfast declaration of "AAA", was able to establish that the
appellant forced her to lie down on a grassy ground and, at knifepoint, inserted his penis into her
vagina. Appellant therefore, should be held guilty of rape under Article 266-A(1)(a) of the RPC
and sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead of violation of Section 5(b)of RA 7610.

4. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSEPH AGALOT

G.R. No. 220884, February 21, 2018
FACTS: 
 Appellant was charged with rape in relation to R.A. No. 7610 in an Information which
alleges that the accused with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, a
girl 12 years of age without her consent and against her will.
 The physical examination conducted on AAA showed Abrasion noted at 4 o'clock
position; Admits examining finger (little finger) with pain and Cervical swab sent for
spermatozoa examination.
 According to the appellant, whipped her but because she still did not want to go home,
and he dragged her towards the house.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not appellant is guilty of rape?

Ruling: 
MARTIRES, J.:
Yes. For a charge of rape under Article 266-A(1) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353 to
prosper, it must be proven that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he
accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented.
The basic rule is that when a victim's testimony is credible and sufficiently establishes the
elements of the crime, it may be enough basis to convict an accused of rape. The records reveal
that the testimony of AAA, though she was only a child, was full of details which she credibly
narrated because these were the truth.
Dr. Mandin testified that when she did a perineal examination of AAA she noted
erythema or redness caused by force or pressure on her right and left labia majora, and abrasion
of the vulva at 4 o'clock position. Upon internal examination, the examining finger was admitted
with pain. Further, the defense of alibi and denial proffered by the accused-appellant were
inherently weak and which cannot prevail over the positive identification by AAA that it was the
accused-appellant who raped her.
A rape victim's account is sufficient to support a conviction for rape if it is
straightforward, candid, and corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician.
This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA which affirmed the Judgment of the RTC
finding him guilty of Rape in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, as amended.

5. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DOMINADOR LADRA

G.R. No. 221443, July 17, 2017 

FACTS: 
 AAA is the eldest of 5 siblings. When she was around 5 years old, she and her siblings
were left at home with appellant, who is their mother’s relative. He asked the kids to
sleep after meal. AAA was awakened when she felt appellant, forced his penis into her
vagina, and made push and pull movements, causing her pain. Appellant threatened to
 kill her if she told anyone. Thereafter, accused-appellant repeatedly molested her, each
time bringing his bolo with him.
 Years later, AAA - who was already twelve (12) years old at the time - was surprised
when she saw accused-appellant in their kitchen. To her shock, appellant squeezed her
vagina and told her that they were going to visit his house. Scared, AAA cried and told
her cousin, about the incident. She also told about the first rape incident and the
subsequent ones committed by accused-appellant. Eventually, AAA told her mother
about her traumatic experiences in the hands of accused-appellant when she was five (5)
years old.
 RTC and CA convicted accused-appellant of Rape and Unjust Vexation.

ISSUE: 
Whether or not appellant is guilty of rape and acts of lasciviousness and not Rape and
unjust vexation?

RULING:
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
In FC Criminal Case No. 2008-426, the Court accords credence to the RTC's finding, as
affirmed by the CA, that accused-appellant indeed committed the crime of Rape against then five
(5)-year-old AAA.
However, the Court disagrees with the CA's affirmance of the RTC's finding that
accused-appellant can only be held guilty of Unjust Vexation. AAA’s testimony was credible
and must be given great weight. The trial judge's evaluation, which the CA sustained, now binds
the Court, leaving to the accused-appellant the burden to bring to the fore facts or circumstances
of weight, which were otherwise overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted that would
materially affect the disposition of the case differently if duly considered.
The Court finds that he should instead be convicted of Acts of Lasciviousness, as
charged in the information, in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 [Child Prostitution and Other
Sexual Abuse]. The prosecution was able to prove AAA's minority at the time of the incident
through the presentation of her Certificate of Live Birth.