Case Digest #21

PP v. JOCEL B. DE DIOS, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020

Facts:
Members of the Tabaco City Police Station, together with the special informant successfully
implemented a buy-bust operation against accused appellant, wherein the alleged dangerous
substances seized from were immediately taken custody by the Police in the presence of a media
representative, a DOJ representative, and one Barangay official. The seized items were then
brought to the Crime Laboratory where after examination, tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Two informations were filed—Illegal Sale and Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs—where after due hearing on the facts and merits, the accused
was found guilty as charged. In his defense, accused-appellant interposed that his arrest was
staged and motivated by ill-will.
Issue:
Whether the finding of guilt by the court a quo and the affirmation of the same by the Court of
Appeals is correct
Held:
YES. The elements for Illegal Sale of Dangerous drugs are as follows: 1. The identity of the
buyer and the seller 2. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment; while Illegal possession of
Dangerous Drugs has the following elements, to wit: 1. The offender was in possession of an
item/object identified as prohibited drug 2. Such possession was not authorized by law 3. The
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The courts a quo correctly found the
accused committed the crime of Illegal Sale, as the records show that he was caught in flagrante
delictp selling shabu to the poseur-buyer, PO3 Codia, during a buy-bust. Similarly he was
correctly found guilty of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs as he freely and consciously
possessed the plastic sachets with shabu inside when he was arrested. Contrary to his defense
that his arrest was staged or merely simulated. In the instant case, it is glaring from the records
that the Police team satisfactorily complied with the chain of custody requirement as provided
under the law; the team immediately took custody of the seized plastic sachets, and conducted
the marking, inventory, and photography of the same in the presence of a media representative, a
DOJ representative, and a Barangay Official as well as the accused. The poseur-buyer personally
delivered all the seized evidence to the Forensic Chemist for testing.

Case Digest #23

PP v. DIVINAGRACIA, G.R. No. 240230, November 28, 2019
Facts:
A confidential informant tipped to Police Officer Plopinio that one, Divinagracia, was selling
Marijuana in Paranaque City. In response to the information, a buy-bust team was formed where
PO3 Plopinio acted as poseur-buyer. On the hour of the buy-bust, Plopinio together with the
informant approached Divinagracia and company, Sy, to pretend-buy Marijuana. Plopinio
handed the marked money and Sy upon order of Divinagracia handed the sachet containing the
prohibited drug to PO3 Plopinio. Upon consummation of the sale, Plopinio reversed his cap to
signal his teammates. Thereafter Plopinio announced his authority as a policeman and arrested
Divinagracia while Police Officer Burgos arrested Sy. Divinagracia surrendered the marked
money while Sy surrenderd a glasspipe suspected of containing Marijuana. The seized items
were inventoried and photographed in the presence of only a Barangay Official. The seized items
tested positive of Marijuana after having been delivered to the crime lab for testing. The accused
were acquitted of the charge of Illegal Possession of Paraphernalia while convicted of Illegal
Sale by the RTC, albeit failure of the buy-bust team to procure a media representative and a DOJ
representative as witnesses to the inventory and documentation of the evidences obtained.
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Sale.
Held:
NO. Clearly, the three-witness rule under the law was not strictly complied with although as
contended by the prosecution, the chain of custody was faithfully conformed with and that the
identity and evidentiary value f the corpus delicti were preserved. The law enumerates the
following stringent grounds for the deviation from the aforesaid requirement, namely: 1.
Justifiable ground must be shown to exist warranting a departure from the rule on strict
compliance and 2. The apprehending team must prove that the integrity of the seized items had
been properly preserved. This means that the procedural lapses must be identified and that
sufficient explanation must be made why those lapses were incurred. Unfortunately, the
prosecution failed to do so. In fact it did not profer any substantial explanation as to why a
representative from the media and DOJ were not present at the time of seizure, inventory, and
photographing of the illicit items. Therefore, any and all evidence tending to establish the chain
of custody were deemed immaterial. Even the identity of the seized evidence became ambiguous
and unreliable, unworthy of belief. The accused-appellants’ acquittal is perforce in order.