People of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, P/Supt.

Dionicio Carbonel Borromeo

and SPO1 Joey Arce Abang
FACTS:
The Naguilian Police Station, La Union Police Provincial Office, PDEA and barangay
officials, raided the house and piggery owned by one Eusebio Tangalin. On the strength of a
search warrant issued, authorities combed the property and confirmed their initial
suspicion - that it was a clandestine shabu laboratory. Seized from the compound were
truckloads of dangerous drugs (shabu), controlled precursors, essential chemicals,
equipment and paraphernalia utilized for the manufacture of shabu. Police authorities,
likewise, arrested on the spot Dante Palaganas and Andy Tangalin, the alleged caretakers of
the property.
Dante Palaganas testified that he was instructed by the private respondents P/Supt.
Borromeo to find a lot suitable for a piggery business, which turned out to be a clandestine
shabu laboratory. Joselito Artuz, as represented by Dante, leased the property from
Eusebio. P/Supt. Borromeo told Dante to omit his name from any transaction. Joselito and
his Chinese associates systematically transformed the bare land into a thriving hotbed of
shabu. Dante stood watch as the laboratory efficiently yielded gallons and gallons of shabu.
Dante dutifully reported the day's produce to P/Supt. Borromeo. SPO1 Abang, on the other
hand, closely monitored Dante. Every time they would meet in the RMG headquarters,
SPO1 Abang always inquired about the activities of Dante as caretaker of the Upper
Bimmotobot laboratory. He once remarked to Dante that his job was easy, and he will kill
him if he does not do his job. SPO1 Abang had once visited the laboratory himself.
During the surprise inspection on July 8, Dante, after taking some phone calls,
approached Police Chief Inspector Erwin Dayag (PC/Insp. Dayag) and SPO1 Alan S. Banana
and offered them P20,000,000.00 to instantly desist from the inspection. When PC/Insp.
Dayag asked Dante to produce a firearm the latter claimed to possess, Dante talked first
with someone on the phone, and then remarked to PC/Insp. Dayag said that he knew
Colonel Borromeo. He then told the caller that his gun was being seized from him by police
officers. The police officers traced the numbers Dante called on that day to P/Supt.
Borromeo. When the police returned with a search warrant on July 9, Dante again called
P/Supt. Borromeo and asked him what he should do. P/Supt. Borromeo advised Dante to
make a run for it.
During the surprise inspection on July 8, Dante, after taking some phone calls,
approached Police Chief Inspector Erwin Dayag (PC/Insp. Dayag) and SPO1 Alan S. Banana
and offered them P20,000,000.00 to instantly desist from the inspection. When PC/Insp.
Dayag asked Dante to produce a firearm the latter claimed to possess, Dante talked first
with someone on the phone, and then remarked to PC/Insp. Dayag said that he knew
Colonel Borromeo. He then told the caller that his gun was being seized from him by police
officers. The police officers traced the numbers Dante called on that day to P/Supt.
Borromeo. When the police returned with a search warrant on July 9, Dante again called
P/Supt. Borromeo and asked him what he should do. P/Supt. Borromeo advised Dante to
make a run for it.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused conspired with the establishment and operation of the
clandestine shabu laboratory.
RULING:
YES. Borromeo played a key role in the conspiracy. It was him who initially ordered
Palaganas to scout for a lot where a piggery could be put up. He personally checked the
places found by Palaganas and rejected those that were earlier shown by Palaganas for
being near populated areas. He also directed Palaganas to contact Artuz so that the latter
could inspect the places that were scouted. Artuz arrived on two separate occasions to
inspect the scouted places. The first was when the (sic) inspected the lot found by
Palaganas near the cockpit arena of Naguilian in the company of Chinese nationals which
he eventually rejected because there were houses nearby. The second when Palaganas
found the lot in Upper Bimmotobot which he described as "beautiful" and Artuz with
Chinese companions arrived for an ocular inspection. The lot at Upper Bimmotobot was
finally approved by Artuz and after the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement between
the owner Eusebio Tangalin and Palaganas who represented Artuz. The lot was improved,
and constructions were introduced thereon with the money provided by Artuz. Later, the
place became the site of the Bimmotobot Clandestine Shabu Laboratory. All these activities
were monitored by Borromeo, through Palaganas who was reporting to him regularly.
When the Shabu laboratory was already operating, Palaganas regularly reported to
Borromeo about the operation. The results of the cooking sessions of the chemicals by the
Chinese men, particularly the number of containers of cooked chemicals, were reported
periodically by Palaganas to Borromeo. After each cooking session, the cooked chemicals
placed inside the containers were brought to Cesmin Beach Resort and eventually to
Manila, by the men of Artuz. Thereafter, Artuz paid Palaganas fat sums of money as reward.
When the inspection of the place was conducted by the team from the municipal
government of Naguilian, Palaganas was in contact with Borromeo through cellphone and
even name dropped him, when PCI Dayag asked him where his firearm was. Likewise,
when Search Warrant No. 2008-08 was being implemented, Palaganas also talked with
Borromeo through cell phone. The cell phone conversations were registered in the
simpacks of the cellphone of Palaganas which were later transcripted (Exhibit "MMM") by
PCI Lizardo and IO3 Azurin and the CIDG, which showed the telephone number of
Borromeo - 09209180208 as confirmed by the Telephone Directory of PNP PRO 1 (Exhibit
"BBB" and sub-markings). Incidentally, when Borromeo testified in Court, he admitted that
the aforesaid number (09209180208) belongs to him.
 On the basis of the foregoing and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is
no iota of doubt that Borromeo is a co-conspirator under the provisions of Section 8, in
relation to Section 26(d), Article II of R.A. No. 9165

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 238971, August 28, 2019

CHARBEN DUARTE Y OLIVEROS, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

RESPONDENT.

FACTS:

Duarte was charged of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession
of Drug Paraphernalia.

At around five (5) o' clock in the morning of January 20, 2014, a concerned citizen
went to the Police Community Precinct Zone 3-Caloocan City Police Station to report a
shooting incident along Don Jose Street, Caloocan City. Pursuant thereto, PO2 Wilson P.
Tan, Jr. and PO1 Willy P. Galauran (PO1 Galauran) went to the said area and upon arrival
thereat, they saw a man lying on the ground with a gunshot wound, later identified as
Duarte. As the police officers approached Duarte, they noticed that a gun was tucked on the
right side of his waist. PO1 Galauran then took the gun and asked Duarte if he had the
requisite authority to possess the gun. Since Duarte failed to answer or show a license to
carry said gun, PO1 Galauran conducted a body search on him and took a black sling bag
from his shoulder. Upon opening said bag, PO1 Galauran discovered a grenade, a plastic
sachet containing white crystalline substance, and various drug paraphernalia. The police
officers then seized Duarte's belongings, marked the same, informed him of his
constitutional rights, and took him to the hospital for the treatment of his gunshot wound.
Thereafter, the police officers went back to their office and, inter alia, turned over the
seized sachet and paraphernalia to the Station of Anti-Illegal Drugs - Special Operation Unit
(SAID). At the SAID, they conducted a physical inventory 7 in the presence of PO1 Galauran,
Barangay Kagawad Rendon Ulderico (Kgd. Ulderico), and Duarte. Finally, the seized sachet
and paraphernalia were brought to the crime laboratory where, upon examination, such
items yielded positive for the presence of shabu.

Duarte defense: He denied the charges against him and narrated his own version of the
events. He said that on that fateful day, he went to his friend, Bart, in order to extend a loan
to him in the amount of P5,000.00. Thereafter, Bart asked that he join his group to go to
Barangay 21, Francisco Street to meet a certain person, to which Duarte reluctantly agreed.
While they were cruising the streets on board single motorcycles, Duarte heard gunshots
and felt that he was hit at the back. This prompted him to intentionally crash his
motorcycle, run away towards the highway, and thereafter hail a tricycle which took him to
the hospital. However, while fleeing, he noticed that it was Bart who fired at him, but did
not know why his friend would do such a thing to him.

RTC : found Duarte guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of RA
9165, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an
indeterminate period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00.

The RTC, however, acquitted Duarte for violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 for
failure of the prosecution to identify the corpus delicti of the crime. The RTC found that the
prosecution established all the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs since a
plastic sachet containing shabu was found in Duarte's sling bag. In this regard, the RTC
noted that since PO1 Galauran saw a gun tucked at Duarte's waist and that the latter failed
to show that he was authorized to carry the same, PO1 Galauran was authorized to arrest
Duarte and conduct a search incidental thereto, which in turn, yielded the said plastic
sachet.14 Aggrieved, Duarte appealed to the CA.

CA: affirmed the RTC ruling.It held that all the elements of violation of Section 11, Article II
of RA 9165 are present as it was shown that Duarte freely possessed a plastic sachet
containing shabu despite his lack of authority therefor. The CA also ruled that the police
officers substantially complied with the chain of custody rule, further opining that the
absence of the DOJ and media representatives during inventory is forgivable, so long as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

ISSUE:

WON Duarte is liable for violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
(possession of Dangerous drugs).

RULING:

NO, In cases for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential
that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering
that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime.
Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State
insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants
an acquittal.

In this case, it appears that the inventory and photography of the items seized from Duarte
were not conducted in the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media, as
evinced from the Receipt of Physical Inventory, which only showed a signature from an
elected public official, i.e., Kgd. Ulderico, contrary to the mandatory procedure laid down in
RA 9165. This is confirmed by the testimony of PO1 Galauran on cross-examination.

It is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for the aforesaid witnesses'

absence by presenting a justifiable reason therefor, or at the very least, by showing that
genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their
presence. Here, the defense lawyer, through the cross-examination of PO1 Galauran, had
already pointed out that only an elected public official was present during the inventory
and photography of the seized items. At this point, the prosecution should have already
noted the absence of the representatives from the DOJ and the media and interrogated PO1
Galauran, or any other witness for that matter, on whether or not earnest efforts were
exerted in ensuring the presence of all the required witnesses during the conduct of the
inventory and photography. Absent any determination of earnest efforts, the Court is
constrained to hold that there was an unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule,
resulting in the conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly
seized from Duarte were compromised. Perforce, his acquittal is warranted under these
circumstances.

Consigna vs. People, R. No. 175750-51 April 2, 2014

FACTS:
On or about June 14, 1994, Consigna, the Municipal Treasurer of Gen. Luna Surigao del
Norte together with Herasmio obtained a loan from Moleta of 320k to pay salaries of the
employees of the municipality and to construct the municipal gymnasium as the
municipality’s Internal Revenue Allotment (IRS) had not yet arrived. As payment, Consigna
issued 3 LBP checks signed by the mayor of Gen. Luna.
Moleta deposited these checks to her account in Metrobank, however upon presentation,
the bank returned the checks as the checks has no funds. The following day, Moleta then
again deposited the checks in her LBP account, and again the bank returned it for the reson
“signature not on file”.Upon verification, LBP informed Moleta that the municipality’s
account was already closed and transferred to DBP and Consigna has been relieved from
her position.
Moleta filed with the Sandiganbayan 2 sets of Information against Consigna, in her capacity
as municipal treasurer and also for the mayor for Anti graft and corruption practices act
and estafa under RPC.
SB: Consigna found guilty but the mayor was exonerated as his guilt was not proven with
moral certainty.
ISSUE:
WON Consigna is guilty of RA 3019 Section e.
RULING:
YES, The following are the essential elements of violation of Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: (1) the
accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (2) he
must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence; and (3) that
his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private
party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
There is no doubt that Consigna, being a municipal treasurer, was a public officer discharging
official functions when she misused such position to be able to take out a loan from Moleta, who
was misled into the belief that she, as municipal treasurer, was acting on behalf of the municipality.
In this case, it was not only alleged in the Information, but was proved with certainty during trial
that the manner by which petitioner perpetrated the crime necessarily relates to her official
function as a municipal treasurer. Petitioner’s official function created in her favor an impression of
authority to transact business with Moleta involving government financial concerns. There is,
therefore, a direct relation between the commission of the crime and petitioner’s office – the latter
being the very reason or consideration that led to the unwarranted benefit she gained from Moleta,
for which the latter suffered damages in the amount of P320,000.00. It was just fortunate that
Rusillon instructed the bank to stop payment of the checks issued by petitioner, lest, the victim
could have been the Municipality of General Luna.