Title 5 Crimes Relative To Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs - Digest

Remove Watermark Wondershare
PDFelement
TITLE V CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS_DIGEST | 1 of 43
TITLE 5 CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER

PROHIBITED DRUGS_DIGEST
1. De Lima vs. Guerrero | Sec. 5 | G.R. No. 229781 | October 10, 2017 | JL 2
2. People v. Laba | Sec. 5 | G.R. No. 199938 | January 28, 2013 | Jammy 6
3. People v. Sui Ming, et. al. | Sec. 5 | G.R. No. 246577 | July 13, 2020 | Kate 8
4. People v. Sapla | Sec. 5 | G.R. No. 244045 | June 16, 2020 | JL 10
5. People v. Quijano | Sec. 11 | G.R. No. 247558 | February 19, 2020 | Vee 12
6. People v. Pis-an | Sec. 11 | G.R. No. 242692 | July 13, 2020 | Ivy 15
7. Dela Cruz v. People | Sec. 15 | G.R. No. 200748 | July 23, 2014 | Jolo 18
8. People v. Sullano | Sec. 15 | G.R. No. 228373 | March 12, 2018 | JL 19
9. People v. Suating | Sec. 21 | G.R. No. 220142 | January 29, 2020 | Jammy 22
10. People v. Lim | Sec. 21 | G.R. No. 231989 | 04 Sept. & 13 Nov. 2018 | Kate 26
11. People v. Ruiz | Sec. 21 | G.R. No. 243635 | November 27, 2019 | Vee 30
12. People v. Abdullah | Sec. 21 | G.R. No. 243941 | March 11, 2020 | Ivy 32
13. Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo | Sec. 23 | G.R. No. 226679 | August 15, 2017 | Jolo 35
14. Pascua v. People | Sec. 24 | G.R. No. 250578 | September 7, 2020 | Vee 37
15. People v. Morilla | Sec. 26 | G.R. No. 189833 | February 5, 2014 | Jammy 39
16. People v. Laylo | Sec. 26 | G.R. No. 192235 | July 6, 2011 | Kate 42
CASE POOL MEMBERS: AGUILAR, CABEL, DIMAYACYAC, GABUCO, NARZABAL, VILLAVERT CRIMREV | SBCA | A.Y. 2021-2022
PDFelement
1. De Lima vs. Guerrero | Sec. 5 | G.R. No. 229781 | October 10, 2017 | JL
petitioner: SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA

respondents: HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of
Muntinlupa City, Branch 204, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, P/DIR. GEN. RONALD M. DELA ROSA, in his
capacity as Chief of the Philippine National Police, PSUPT. PHILIP GIL M. PHILIPPS, in his capacity as Director,
Headquarters Support Service, SUPT. ARNEL JAMANDRON APUD, in his capacity as Chief, PNP Custodial
Service Unit, and ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION OR
DIRECTION IN RELATION TO THE ORDERS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT
Victim(s): n/a Location: Branch 204, RTC Muntinlupa Date of Incident: November 2012 to March 2013
Information: 3 Informations. One for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section (jj), Section 26 (b), and Section
28 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 which is raffled in the sala of the respondent judge. Illegal Trading
RTC: Honorable Juanita Guerrero issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner, and was yet to rule on Petitioner’s motion
to quash.
SC: SC denied the petition for lack of merit being premature and ordered the RTC to proceed with the criminal
case.
Mode: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and Urgent Prayer for
Temporary Restraining Order and Status Quo Ante Order under Rule 65 | JEMAA: None
FACTS: The DOJ filed criminal complaints against Senator de Lima after several inquiries made by Congress regarding
the proliferation of drugs inside the Bilibid prison.
Petitioner filed before the CA a Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari assailing the jurisdiction of the DOJ Panel over the
complaints against her arguing that the Office of the Ombudsman has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear the 4
complaints against her.
While her petitions were pending before the CA, the DOJ Panel proceeded with the conduct of the preliminary
investigation which resulted to the recommendation of filing Informations against petitioner De Lima. Accordingly, 3
Informations were filed against petitioner De Lima and several co-accused before the RTC of Muntinlupa City. One of the
criminal cases charging petitioner for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section (jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28 of RA
9165, were raffled off to Branch 204, presided by respondent Judge Guerrero. Judge Guerrero issued the presently
assailed order finding probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against De Lima and her co-accused.
The Senator filed a motion to quash the warrant and pending such motion she also filed a petition for certiorari under rule
65 alleging that the issuance of the warrant of arrest was with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner argues that, based on
the allegations of the Information in Criminal Case No. 17-165, the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to try and hear the
case against her. She posits that the Information charges her not with violation of RA 9165 but with Direct Bribery — a
felony within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan given her rank as the former Secretary of Justice with Salary
Grade 31. For the petitioner, even assuming that the crime described in the Information is a violation of RA 9165, the
Sandiganbayan still has the exclusive jurisdiction to try the case considering that the acts described in the Information
were intimately related to her position as the Secretary of Justice.
ISSUE: Whether the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the violation of Republic Act No.
9165 averred in the assailed Information.
HELD: The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction.
PDFelement
The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the
accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as
committed in relation to office.
A perusal of the drugs law will reveal that public officials were never considered excluded from its scope. Hence,
Section 27 of RA 9165 punishes government officials found to have benefited from the trafficking of dangerous drugs,
while Section 28 of the law imposes the maximum penalty on such government officials and employees.
In this case, RA 9165 specified the RTC as the court with the jurisdiction to “exclusively try and hear cases involving
violations of RA 9165.” This is an exception, couched in the special law on dangerous drugs, to the general rule under
Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660.
Special law prevails over a general law. Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, is the general law on
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking officers in relation to their office.
Section 90, RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction violations of RA 9165 committed
by such public officers. In the latter case, jurisdiction is vested upon the RTCs designated by the SC as drugs court,
regardless of whether the violation of RA 9165 was committed in relation to the public official’s office.
CLARIFICATION ON THE CRIME WITH WHICH PETITIONER IS BEING CHARGED
The designation, the prefatory statements and the accusatory portions of the Information repeatedly provide that
the petitioner is charged with "Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Section 5, in relation
to Section 3 (jj), Section 26 (b), and Section 28, Republic Act No. 9165."
Further, a reading of the provisions of RA 9165 under which the petitioner is prosecuted would convey that De
Lima is being charged as a conspirator in the crime of Illegal Drug Trading. The pertinent provisions of RA 9165
read:
SECTION 3. Definitions. — As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:
(jj) Trading. — Transactions involving the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals using electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, e-mail,
mobile or landlines, two-way radios, internet, instant messengers and chat rooms or acting as a broker in any of
such transactions whether for money or any other consideration in violation of this Act.
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of

Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos
(P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including
any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any
of such transactions.
SECTION 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. — Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful
acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this
Act:
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
SECTION 28. Criminal Liability of Government Officials and Employees. — The maximum penalties of
the unlawful acts provided for in this Act shall be imposed, in addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from
any public office, if those found guilty of such unlawful acts are government officials and employees.
While it may be argued that some facts may be taken as constitutive of some elements of Direct Bribery under
the RPC, these facts taken together with the other allegations in the Information portray a much bigger picture,
Illegal Drug Trading. The latter crime, described by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as "a global
PDFelement
illicit trade involving the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of substances," necessarily involves various
component crimes, not the least of which is the bribery and corruption of government officials.
Read as a whole, the Information against De Lima goes beyond an indictment for Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the
RPC. The averments on how petitioner asked for and received money from the NBP inmates simply complete the links of
conspiracy between her, Ragos, Dayan and the NBP inmates in willfully and unlawfully trading dangerous drugs through
the use of mobile phones and other electronic devices under Section 5, in relation to Section 3 (jj), Section 26 (b), and
Section 28, of RA 9165.
Conspiracy was alleged in the Information
On this score, it has NOT been alleged that the petitioner actually participated in the actual trafficking of
dangerous drugs and had simply allowed the NBP inmates to do so is non sequitur given that the allegation of
conspiracy makes her liable for the acts of her co-conspirators. As this Court elucidated, it is not indispensable for a
co-conspirator to take a direct part in every act of the crime. A conspirator need not even know of all the parts which the
others have to perform, as conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony; it is not participation in all the details of
the execution of the crime. As long as the accused, in one way or another, helped and cooperated in the consummation
of a felony, she is liable as a co-principal.
As the Information provides, De Lima's participation and cooperation was instrumental in the trading of
dangerous drugs by the NBP inmates. The minute details of this participation and cooperation are matters of evidence
that need not be specified in the Information but presented and threshed out during trial.
Illegal Sale vs Illegal Trading
It should be noted that the subject of these cases was "Illegal Sale" of dangerous drugs — a crime separate and distinct
from "Illegal Trading" averred in the Information against De Lima. The elements of "Illegal Sale" will necessary differ from
the elements of Illegal Trading under Section 5, in relation to Section 3 (jj), of RA 9165.
The crime of illegal trading has been written in strokes much broader than that for illegal sale.
In fact, an illegal sale of drugs may be considered as only one of the possible component acts of illegal trading
which may be committed through two modes:
(1) illegal trafficking using electronic devices; or
(2) acting as a broker in any transactions involved in the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs.
In turn, the crimes included in the definition of Illegal Trafficking of drugs are defined as follows:
(a) Administer. — Any act of introducing any dangerous drug into the body of any person, with or
without his/her knowledge, by injection, inhalation, ingestion or other means, or of committing any act of
indispensable assistance to a person in administering a dangerous drug to himself/herself unless administered
by a duly licensed practitioner for purposes of medication.
(d) Chemical Diversion. — The sale, distribution, supply or transport of legitimately imported, in-transit,
manufactured or procured controlled precursors and essential chemicals, in diluted, mixtures or in concentrated
form, to any person or entity engaged in the manufacture of any dangerous drug, and shall include packaging,
repackaging, labeling, relabeling or concealment of such transaction through fraud, destruction of documents,
fraudulent use of permits, misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail fraud.
(i) Cultivate or Culture. — Any act of knowingly planting, growing, raising, or permitting the planting,
growing or raising of any plant which is the source of a dangerous drug.
PDFelement
(k) Deliver. — Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and
by any means, with or without consideration.
(m) Dispense. — Any act of giving away, selling or distributing medicine or any dangerous drug with or
without the use of prescription.
(u) Manufacture. — The production, preparation, compounding or processing of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, either directly or indirectly or by extraction from substances
of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and
chemical synthesis, and shall include any packaging or repackaging of such substances, design or configuration
of its form, or labeling or relabeling of its container; except that such terms do not include the preparation,
compounding, packaging or labeling of a drug or other substances by a duly authorized practitioner as an
incident to his/her administration or dispensation of such drug or substance in the course of his/her professional
practice including research, teaching and chemical analysis of dangerous drugs or such substances that are not
intended for sale or for any other purpose.
(kk) Use. — Any act of injecting, intravenously or intramuscularly, of consuming, either by chewing,
smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing, drinking or otherwise introducing into the physiological system of the body,
any of the dangerous drugs.
The same may be said of the second mode for committing Illegal Trading, or trading by "acting as a broker" in
transactions involved in Illegal Trafficking. In this instance, the accused may neither have physical possession of the
drugs nor meet the buyer and seller and yet violate RA 9165. A broker is generally defined as one who is engaged, for
others, on a commission, negotiating contracts relative to the property with the custody of which he has no concern; the
negotiator between other parties, never acting in his own name, but in the name of those who employed him; he is
strictly a middleman and for some purposes the agent of both parties. For the Court, the primary occupation of a broker
is simply bringing “the buyer and the seller together, even if no sale is eventually made.”
For the prosecution of Illegal Trading of drugs to prosper, proof that the accused “acted as a broker” or brought together
the buyer and seller of illegal drugs “using electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, e-mail, mobile
or landlines, two-way radios, internet, instant messengers and chat rooms” is sufficient.
The DOJ’s designation of the charge as one for Illegal Drug Trading thus holds sway. As such, with the
designation of the offense, the recital of facts in the Information, there can be no other conclusion than that
petitioner is being charged not with Direct Bribery but with violation of RA 9165.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for prohibition and certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit (being
premature). The RTC is ordered to proceed with dispatch with Criminal Case No. 17-165.
PDFelement
2. People v. Laba | Sec. 5 | G.R. No. 199938 | January 28, 2013 | Jammy
plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines | defendants-appellants: Camaloding Laba

Wt of drugs: 196.63 grams of shabu Location: MIA, Pasay City Date of Incident: July 18, 2005
Information: Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, Illegal Transportation
RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt
CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC in toto
SC: Affirmed the decision of the CA
Mode: Certiorari | JEMAA:
FACTS: On July 18, 2005, at around 10:45 in the morning, appellant arrived at the Manila Domestic Airport in Pasay City
to take his flight bound for Davao City. When he approached the initial check-in area, Mark Anthony Villocillo a
non-uniformed personnel (NUP) frisker assigned thereat, physically searched the person of appellant and suspected that
the latter's oversized white rubber shoes, with the identifying mark "Spicer," seemed to contain what felt like rice. Upon
inspection of the rubber shoes, which Villocillo asked appellant to remove, the former discovered the 3 plastic sachets
containing shabu — two plastic sachets were inside the left shoe while one was inside the right shoe. When Villocillo
extracted the plastic sachets from the appellant's shoes, the latter told Villocillo, "Baka pwedeng pag-usapan ito" while
simultaneously handing him a rolled wad of paper bills. Eventually, Villocillo called the attention of his supervisor, SPO2
Nolasco Peji, who apprehended appellant and apprised him of his rights. Subsequently, appellant was brought to their
office and investigated by PO2 Edwin Caimoso, who thereafter indorsed appellant, together with the confiscated plastic
sachets, to PDEA agents who had eventually arrived at the scene. The following day, or on June 19, 2005, upon
qualitative examination by forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector Stella Garciano Ebuen on the confiscated sachets,
which contained a total of 196.63 grams of white crystalline substance, the same tested positive for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Defense/Petitioner’s contention: In defense, appellant claimed that on the date and time in question, he was at the
Manila Domestic Airport for his flight to Davao City. After passing through the metal detector and while walking towards
the ticketing counter to check-in, a police officer, whom he later identified as SPO2 Peji, called his attention and asked him
to stay for a while because something was allegedly recovered from him. At the same time, appellant noticed that
someone had been arrested, and he heard SPO2 Peji tell that person to settle the case so that they could just "pass" the
"thing" to appellant, which turned out to be shabu. Thereafter, SPO2 Peji and Villocillo brought the appellant to an office
where SPO2 Peji forced him to admit ownership of the shabu. When appellant refused, SPO2 Peji suggested the
settlement of the case for P100,000.00, an amount which appellant could not afford. Later, he was brought to a PDEA
office where PDEA agents took his statement and once again asked him to admit ownership of the confiscated shabu.
Appellant averred that SPO2 Peji confiscated his wallet which contained P1,600.00 in cash, as well as P2,000.00 found in
the pocket of his pants. Finally, appellant denied wearing the white rubber shoes with the label "Spicer" at the time he was
arrested.
Ruling of the RTC
On August 29, 2006, after trial on the merits, the RTC convicted appellant as charged upon a finding that all the elements
for transportation of drugs, i.e., actual physical possession and control of the prohibited drugs, coupled with the
presentation of the corpus delicti in court, have been established by the prosecution. RTC refused to give credence to
appellant's bare and unsubstantiated denials, as well as his claim that he was merely framed-up, and his insistence that
the police officers were extorting money from him.
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision in toto, holding that the identity of the seized substance had been
adequately proved and that the chain of custody was properly established, from the time that it was recovered from the
person of the appellant, tested at the laboratory for a qualitative examination, and its actual presentation in court. While
the CA conceded that the arresting officers were unable to strictly comply with the requirements set forth under Sec. 21,
PDFelement
Par. (1) of RA 9165 by failing to photograph the seized items, it nonetheless found that the evidentiary value of the
confiscated substance had been preserved. It also did not find the non-presentation of the forensic chemist as fatal to the
cause of the prosecution.
ISSUE: Whether or not Laba is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
HELD: YES.
Appellant was convicted of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, which reads:
Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon
any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any such transactions.
In adjudging appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the said offense, the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, considered the
fact that he was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of an extremely large amount of prohibited drugs inside the
airport, before boarding his flight bound for Davao City. The RTC explained that Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 penalizes the
act of transporting shabu, under which provision appellant must clearly be convicted.
"Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean "to carry or convey from one place to another."
The essential element of the charge is the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another.
In this case, appellant was apprehended inside the airport, as he was intending to board his flight bound for Davao City
with a substantial amount or 196.63 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in his possession, concealed in
separate plastic bags inside his oversized Spicer rubber shoes. While it may be argued that appellant was yet to board
the aircraft or travel some distance with the illegal drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied that his presence at the
airport at that particular instance was for the purpose of transporting or moving the dangerous drugs from one place to
another. Moreover, it may be reasonably inferred from the deliberations of the Congress that if a person is found to have
more than 5 grams of shabu in his possession, then his purpose in carrying them is to dispose, traffic, or sell it.
REPRESENTATIVE CUENCO: The technical committee that has been assisting us in carpentering this bill tells us that a
habitual user of, let's say, shabu, one of the dangerous substances provided for here, a habitual user of shabu, even if we
say daily taker of shabu consumes only 1/5 of a gram, .02 grams a day. So that means, if he has with him one gram of
shabu, that is good for five days; if he has five grams, that is good for 25 days. Now if he is a user, he won't need more
than five grams to carry with him or her. So the presumption of the law is that, if he carries with him or her more than five
grams, that is not for his personal consumption. He is out to traffic the rest of it.
Ruling as regards the Chain of Custody
With respect to the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs, the Court likewise finds no reason to disturb the findings of
the CA that the same had been faithfully observed by the arresting officers: from the time that the illegal substance was
seized from appellant and properly marked by the arresting officers, to its laboratory examination until its presentation in
open court for identification purposes. Considering that the integrity of the seized substance has been duly preserved,
failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21, Par. (a)[39] of RA 9165 requiring the apprehending officers to physically inventory
and photograph the confiscated items shall not render the evidence inadmissible.
PDFelement
3. People v. Sui Ming, et. al. | Sec. 5 | G.R. No. 246577 | July 13, 2020 | Kate
plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

defendants-appellants: SIU MING TAT AND LEE YOONG HOEW
Wt of drugs: 426.30 grams of ephedrine Location: City of Manila Date of Incident: July 26, 2012
Poseur-buyer: PO3 Mabanglo
Information: Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, paragraph (b), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165
RTC: Found appellants Tat and Lee guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principals for violation of Sections 5 in relation to
Article 26 of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (for pushing
ephedrine) Illegal Sale
CA: Affirmed RTC’s decision
SC: Affirmed CA’s decision
Mode: Notice of Appeal | JEMAA:
FACTS: Prosecution Version
After the briefing, PO3 Mabanglo and PI Salmingo left the office and checked in at the China Town Hotel as the
confidential informant informed them that the appellants were already in the said hotel. At the lobby, the confidential
informant told PO3 Mabanglo that the deal that he arranged will be held at Room 315 of the hotel, which is beside their
hotel room. Subsequently, PO3 Mabanglo called PCI Ibañez and informed him about what had transpired. The latter then
gave the former the "go" signal and thus, the confidential informant and PO3 Mabanglo proceeded to Room 315 while PI
Salmingo was instructed to remain on standby in Room 316.
Upon reaching the target area, they were greeted by a Chinese-looking man, later identified as appellant Tat, who told
them to go inside. Inside the room, PO3 Mabanglo was introduced to appellant Tat by the confidential informant as the
one who will buy the drugs. Appellant Lee was also seen in the room seated on the bed. PO3 Mabanglo was then asked if
he had the money to which he answered in the affirmative. After that, appellant Tat then went to the cabinet at the left side
of the room and got a travelling bag. He placed the bag on top of the bed and pulled out a yellow plastic bag with Chinese
characters. From the yellow plastic bag, appellant Tat took out one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
426.30 grams of white crystalline substance. Appellant Tat then showed the sachet to PO3 Mabanglo, who told the former
that "it was good" and gave the money to appellant Lee.
Immediately thereafter, PO3 Mabanglo executed the pre-arranged signal by pressing on his cellphone PI Salmingo's
number to signify that the deal had already been consummated. The latter then rushed to the scene and effected the
arrest of appellant Lee while PO3 Mabanglo arrested appellant Tat. The appellants were then apprised of their violation
and constitutional rights.
Seized from the appellants were the yellow plastic bag and one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance as
well as the buy-bust money. PO3 Mabanglo then, with the assistance of the members of the team, conducted the marking
and physical inventory of the seized items in the presence of the appellants, ACP Tuvera, Brgy. Chairman Que, and
Marco Gutierez, a media representative from ABS-CBN. The plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
confiscated from the appellants was marked as "EAM 07-26-2012 EXH. A." Photographs of the same were taken as well.
The seized items were then turned over to the duty investigator, SPO1 Calva, by PO3 Mabanglo after accomplishing the
Receipt/Inventory Form and the Chain of Custody Form as proof that he was turning over the seized items to the former.
After conducting the said examination on the contents of the plastic sachet, Forensic Chemist, PCI Ballesteros found that
the seized item tested positive for ephedrine, a dangerous drug, as shown in the Chemistry Report No. D-220-1213 dated
July 26, 2012. The ephedrine subject of the sale was brought to and duly identified in open court.
Defense Version: Appellant Tat declared that he and appellant Lee arrived in the Philippines from Hongkong through
Clark International Airport in Pampanga to take their vacation. From the airport, they immediately proceeded to Binondo,
PDFelement
Manila by taking a taxi. Upon arrival thereat, they checked-in into a hotel in Binondo. The following day, Tat asked
appellant Lee to go to a travel agency in Binondo to buy airline tickets. While he was left alone inside the hotel room,
police officers went inside the room and pointed a gun at him. One of the police officers handcuffed him and searched the
room. When appellant Lee arrived at the hotel room, he was surprised to see appellant Tat in handcuffs and being ganged
up by police officers. He was also handcuffed and he saw one of the police officers bring something into the room and
placed this thing inside a plastic bag owned by him. He also saw a paper bag with money inside and photographs were
taken as well by a media representative. Thereafter, they were brought to the police station.
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants are guilty of Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, paragraph (b), Article II
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165
HELD: YES.
The elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs had been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution
must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale
transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court
and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.
In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the
seller of the marked money consummate the illegal transaction. What matters is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence.
As noted by the CA, it is clear from the records of the case that appellants Tat and Lee were caught in flagrante delicto of
selling a dangerous drug, ephedrine, to PO3 Mabanglo on July 26, 2012. The appellants sold and delivered the plastic
sachet containing ephedrine to PO3 Mabanglo posing as buyer. There was an actual exchange of the marked money and
the plastic sachet containing ephedrine. Further, the appellants were positively identified in open court by the prosecution
witnesses as the persons who sold the dangerous drugs to PO3 Mabanglo.
There was an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs and the corpus delicti has not lost its integrity and evidentiary
value.
In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused
constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized
drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
Generally there are four links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug: (i) its seizure and marking, if practicable,
from the accused, by the apprehending officer; (ii) its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (iii)
its turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (iv) its turnover by the forensic
chemist to the court.
We find that the prosecution sufficiently established all the links in the chain of custody and proved that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drugs had not been compromised.
A perusal of the records clearly reveals how PO3 Mabanglo, assisted by PI Salmingo, effected the arrests immediately
after appellants Tat and Lee sold to him the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. Thereafter, he
immediately marked the seized item with "EAM 07-26-2012 EXH. A". The same was inventoried and photographed in the
presence of the appellants, ACP Tuvera, Brgy. Chairman Que and Marco Gutierez, a media representative from
ABS-CBN. Clearly, the requirements provided under Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640 was
faithfully complied with by the apprehending team. Following that, the seized item was brought to the police station and
PDFelement
was turned over to the duty investigator, SPO1 Calva. After making the proper documentation, the specimen was brought
to the crime laboratory for qualitative examination which was received by PCI Ballesteros. Upon receipt of the specimen,
consisting of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "EAM 07-26-2012 EXH. A" containing 426.30
grams of white crystalline substance, PCI Ballesteros conducted the examination thereof. The said specimen tested
positive for ephedrine, a dangerous drug, as shown in the Chemistry Report No. D-220-12 dated July 26, 2012. The
ephedrine subject of the sale was brought to and duly identified in open court.
The difference between the drugs that were supposedly bought and the drugs that were actually bought is irrelevant.
Appellants also question the finding of guilt by the trial court on the ground that the drugs that were supposedly bought,
seized, recovered, confiscated and inventoried are "shabu," but the prosecution presented "ephedrine."
We find this to be inconsequential and does not affect the finding of guilt by the accused. Even if the police transacted for
the sale of shabu, the fact that the seized drugs are ephedrine, will not warrant a reversal of the finding of guilt of the
accused.
In any case, the charge in the information was clearly for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, paragraph (b),
Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It is immaterial whether the allegation was for shabu or ephedrine, since both are
dangerous drugs.
Further, the purpose of the laboratory examination is to confirm that the seized items are indeed dangerous drugs. The
police officers cannot be expected to conclude with certainty whether the suspected dangerous drugs are shabu or
ephedrine just by visual inspection. What matters is that the prosecution was able to prove that the seized items are
indeed dangerous drugs and are the ones presented in court.
This matter was already settled in the case of People v. Noque y Gomez, wherein this Court held that an accused can be
convicted for the sale of shabu, despite the fact that what was established and proven was the sale of ephedrine.
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, can be applied by analogy in convicting the appellant of the offenses
charged, which are included in the crimes proved. In other words, his right to be informed of the charges against him has
not been violated because where an accused is charged with a specific crime, he is duly informed not only of such
specific crime but also of lesser crimes or offenses included therein.
Prosec. Garcia LECTURE:
Whether shabu or ephedrine, etc, does not matter, they are of the same category as prohibited drugs. The case will not be
dismissed. They have the same effect.
4. People v. Sapla | Sec. 5 | G.R. No. 244045 | June 16, 2020 | JL
plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines

accused-appellants: Jerry Sapla y Guerrero a.k.a. Eric Salibad y Mallari
Wt of drugs: 4 bricks of dried marijuana with a total net weight of 3,9563.111 grams
Location: Talaca, Agbannawag, Tabuk City, Kalinga
Date of Incident: 1:20 in the afternoon of January 10, 2014
Information: Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165|||

RTC: convicted accused-appellant Sapla for violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165. The RTC found that the prosecution was
able to sufficiently establish the corpus delicti of the crime
CA: CA denied accused-appellant Sapla's appeal and affirmed the RTC's Decision with modifications. The CA found that
although the search and seizure conducted on accused-appellant Sapla was without a search warrant, the same was
lawful as it was a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle. The CA held that the essential requisite of probable cause
was present, justifying the warrantless search and seizure.
PDFelement
SC: Reversed RTC and CA. Sapla is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt
Mode: Notice of Appeal | JEMAA: N/A
FACTS: According to the version of the Prosecution, an officer on duty at the RPSB office received a phone call from a
concerned citizen, who informed the said office that a certain male individual would be transporting marijuana from
Kalinga and into the Province of Isabela. The PNP coordinated with the PDEA on said information, and the officers
proceeded to the Talaca detachment. The office received a message at 1 pm in the afternoon describing with particularity
the subject male person, who was on board a passenger jeepney, bound for Roxas, Isabela. Subsequently, a joint
checkpoint was strategically organized at the Talaca command post.
After flagging down its passenger jeepney, officers saw Sapla seated at the rear side of the vehicle. The police officers
asked Sapla if he was the owner of the blue sack in front of him, which the latter answered in the affirmative. Upon
request, Sapla opened the blue sack; and saw four bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves, wrapped in newspaper
and an old calendar. Sapla was subsequently arrested, and the items seized.
Defense/Petitioner’s contention: Sapla claimed that after visiting a certain relative in Tabuk City, he boarded a jeepney,
and left for Roxas, Isabela to visit his nephew. Upon reaching Talaca checkpoint, police officers flagged down the said
jeepney in order to check its passengers’ baggages and cargoes. The police officers then found marijuana inside a sack
and were looking for a person who wore fatigue pants at that time. From the 3 passengers who wore fatigue pants, the
said police officers identified him as the owner of the marijuana found inside the sack. He denied ownership of the
marijuana, and asserted that he had no baggage at that time. Thereafter, the police officers arrested Sapla, and brought
him to the Talaca barracks, wherein the sack and marijuana bricks were shown to him.
RTC: Prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the corpus delicti of the crime and sentenced Sapla to pay the fine of
Php 5Million.
CA: affirmed the RTC’s decision and ruled that although the search and seizure conducted on accused-appellant was
without a search warrant, the same was lawful as it was a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle. That the requisite
of probable cause was present justifying the warrantless search and seizure.
ISSUE:
(1) WON there was a valid search and seizure conducted by the police officers; NO
(2) WON there is enough evidence to sustain accused-appellant Sapla's conviction under Section 5 of R.A. 9165. NO
HELD: (1) NO.
As a rule, a search and seizure operation conducted by the authorities is reasonable only when a court issues a search
warrant after it has determined the existence of probable cause pursuant to the Constitutional right against unreasonable
searches and seizures found in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. However, there are instances wherein
searches are reasonable even in the absence of a search warrant, among the known jurisprudential instances of
reasonable warrantless searches and seizures is Search of a Moving Vehicle.
Search of a Moving Vehicle and its Non-Applicability in the Instant Case
In the case of People v. Comprado, whose facts are similar in this case, it was held that, “In search of a moving vehicle,
the vehicle was intentionally used as a means to transport illegal items. It is worthy to note that the information relayed to
the police officers was that a passenger of that particular bus was carrying marijuana such that when the police officers
boarded the bus, they searched the bag of the person matching the description given by their informant and not the cargo
or contents of the said bus."
PDFelement
Thus, applying such doctrine, the target of the search was the person who matched the description given by the
person who called the RPSB Hotline, not Sapla, nor the Cargo, nor the Jeepney. Therefore, the search conducted
in the instant case cannot be characterized as a search of a moving vehicle.
As regards to the validity of routine inspections, the Court held that authorities are not given discretion to conduct intrusive
warrantless searches in the absence of probable cause. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search,
as opposed to a mere routine inspection, "such a warrantless search has been held to be valid only as long as the officers
conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that they will find the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched."
Furthermore, the Court explained that mere reception of a text message from an anonymous person is not sufficient to
create probable cause that enables the authorities to conduct an extensive and intrusive search without a search warrant,
for the Court held with clarity that, "law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped information. A tip
is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other
circumstance that will arouse suspicion."
(2) NO.
The necessary and inescapable consequence of the illegality of the search and seizure conducted by the police in the
instant case is the inadmissibility of the drug specimens retrieved.
Therefore, with the inadmissibility of the confiscated marijuana bricks, there is no more need for the Court to discuss the
other issues surrounding the apprehension of accused-appellant Sapla, particularly the gaps in the chain of custody of
the alleged seized marijuana bricks, which likewise renders the same inadmissible. The prosecution is left with no
evidence left to support the conviction of accused-appellant Sapla. Consequently, accused-appellant Sapla is acquitted
of the crime charged.
Finally, the Court fully recognizes the necessity of adopting a resolute and aggressive stance against the menace of
illegal drugs. Our Constitution declares that the maintenance of peace and order and the promotion of the general
welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. However, when the Constitution
is disregarded, the battle waged against illegal drugs becomes a self-defeating and self-destructive enterprise. A battle
waged against illegal drugs that tramples on the rights of the people is not a war on drugs; it is a war against the people.
The Bill of Rights should never be sacrificed on the altar of convenience. Otherwise, the malevolent mantle of the rule of
men dislodges the rule of law. There being no probable cause against the accused-appellant, the Court ruled his arrest
illegal, and the search and seizure invalid.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The CA decision is reversed and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is
ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY
RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
5. People v. Quijano | Sec. 11 | G.R. No. 247558 | February 19, 2020 | Vee
plaintiff-appellee: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES | defendants-appellants: ALLAN QUIJANO Y SANDING

Wt of drugs: 735.8 grams shabu Location: BJMP Manila Date of Incident: 4-28-2016
Information: violation of Section 11, Art. II of RA 9165, illegal possession of dangerous drugs
RTC: guilty as charged.
CA: affirm with modification. imposition of subsidiary imprisonment is deleted
SC: affirmed CA
Mode: Appeal | JEMAA: none
FACTS: Prosecution: JO2 Briones is a jail officer assigned at the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Manila.
PDFelement
On April 28, 2016, around 1:20 in the afternoon, he was at the window section of the Manila City Jail. There, he noticed
Marivic Tulipat (a regular visitor at the city jail) receiving a light violet bag from someone inside the city jail bakery. He
became suspicious and called her attention. Tulipat appeared hesitant and he had to call her attention several times more
before she finally approached him. But before she did, she handed the bag to appellant Quijano. This prompted him to
also summon appellant who, just like Tulipat, appeared hesitant. Like what he did to Tulipat, he had to also call for
appellant several times more before he finally came to him. He then asked appellant about the contents of the bag.
Instead of responding, however, appellant turned to Tulipat and tried to give it back to her. But Tulipat refused. His
suspicions grew and so he grabbed the bag and opened it. Inside, he saw another blue bag which contained a
transparent bag containing white crystalline substance. He immediately arrested appellant and Tulipat and apprised them
of their constitutional rights. Tulipat attempted to escape but was eventually caught at the main gate of the city jail.
The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed inside the Manila City Jail.
Defense before RTC:
Appellant testified that he is a detainee at the Manila City Jail. On the day of the incident, while waiting for his wife to
come and visit him, there was suddenly a commotion inside the city jail. Tulipat approached and requested him to hold a
light violet bag. He asked for the contents of the bag but Tulipat refused to answer. JO2 Briones inspected the bag and
informed appellant that it contained shabu. Appellant was not aware of what the bag contained "x x x dahil pinahawakan
lang sa akin yan ni Ate Marivic." Tulipat explained that the bag was hers and she only requested appellant to hold it for her
when JO2 Briones called her attention. During the inquest proceedings, Tulipat reiterated she owned the bag.
RTC: The trial court gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution's eyewitness who had in his favor the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duty and rejected appellant's denial. According to the trial court, the prosecution
sufficiently established the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs as there was no showing that appellant had
the authority to possess the seized drugs. It held that JO2 Briones' act of intercepting Tulipat and appellant was within the
purview of the stop-and-frisk doctrine. The trial court took judicial notice of the fact that items brought inside the jail facility
are inspected as part of security measures.
Petitioner’s Contention on appeal to the CA: He argued that the third element of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
- the accused freely and consciously possessed the drugs in question is absent. He merely received the bag from Tulipat
without actual knowledge of its contents. In fact, it only took thirty (30) seconds from the time JO2 Briones called out
Tulipat to the time she handed the bag to appellant. Thereafter, the bag was immediately confiscated. He was
deprived of the chance to inspect the contents of the bag.
OSG: Appellant's contention that he had no knowledge of the contents of the bag was belied by his behavior during the
incident. Appellant was fully aware that Tulipat was already then being summoned by JO2 Briones and a commotion even
ensued since the latter was running after Tulipat. Despite the commotion, appellant readily accepted the bag handed by
Tulipat without hesitation. When summoned by JO2 Briones, appellant did not promptly surrender the bag to the former.
Thus, the prosecution had sufficiently established that appellant, through his prior and contemporaneous actions,
consciously intended to possess the prohibited drug.
CA: Denied the appeal. Affirmed the decision with modification in the imposition of subsidiary imprisonment.
CA held that appellant failed to establish his so-called lack of knowledge of the contents of the blue bag which turned out
to contain more than 700 grams of shabu. It noted that first, appellant knew Tulipat was involved in a commotion inside
the Manila City Jail and was being summoned by JO2 Briones, yet, he still readily and without any hesitation accepted the
bag containing the subject shabu; second, appellant was reluctant to approach and surrender the bag to JO2 Briones
when the latter summoned him; and third, appellant attempted to return the bag to Tulipat when he realized they were
about to get caught in possession of the illegal drugs inside the bag.
ISSUE: WON appellant is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs?
HELD: YES.
PDFelement
For a successful prosecution of an offense for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must
establish the following elements: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug;
(b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.
This crime is mala prohibita, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. The prosecution, however, must prove
that the accused had the intent to possess (animus possidendi). Possession, under the law, includes not only
actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate
physical possession or control of the accused. Constructive possession, on the other hand, exists when the drug is under
the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it
is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise
control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.
In possession of illicit drugs cases, ownership is inconsequential. Mere possession of the illicit drugs is malum
prohibitum and the burden of proof is upon the accused to prove that they have a permit or clearance to possess the
prohibited drugs.
Here, both the trial court and the CA correctly found that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish all the elements
of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Appellant was caught in possession of illegal drugs of considerable quantity
729.2 grams of shabu inside the Manila City Jail.
Appellant failed to prove the absence of animus possidendi
Animus possidendi is a state of mind. It is determined on a case-to-case basis taking into consideration the prior and
contemporaneous acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances. A mere unfounded assertion of the
accused that he or she did not know that he or she had possession of the illegal drug is insufficient, Animus
possidendi is then presumed because he or she was thereby shown to have performed an act that the law prohibited and
penalized. Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. Consequently, the burden of
evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.
As aptly found by the trial court, appellant's prior and contemporaneous acts negate his disclaimer of animus
possidendi. With his behavior and elusive stance, the Court rather finds it difficult to concede that he was not “conscious”
of the content of the light violet bag. It is noted as well that it was rather unusual that, at past 1PM, in the month of April
(when the sun is high and under scorching heat), accused’s only intention for standing in the middle of the street (inside
the MCJ) was to wait for his wife’s visit. Likewise, had accused been unaware of the content there would not have been
any hesitation to surrender the same to JO2 Briones or that there would have been no need to pass it on to Tulipa.
As to the issue of chain of custody
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.
Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
In People v. Amaro, the Court enumerated the following links that should be established in the chain of custody of the
seized 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.
PDFelement
First, the seized items were marked, inventoried and photographed in the Manila City Jail Investigation Unit and in the
presence of appellant and the required witnesses. JO2 Briones did the marking and inventory of the seized items in the
Manila City Jail where Tulipat got attested. The procedure was witnessed by Tulipat and appellant himself, JO3 Jose
Rodzon Antonio, Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Maria Josefina Concepcion, Kagawad Rodelito E. Jurilla, and Police
Inspector Adelo A. Natividad.
Second, the duty investigator prepared the referral to the PDEA Laboratory Service Unit for examination.
Third, the turnover of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination was properly documented. Here,
JO2 Briones brought the seized items and referral letter to the PDEA at 2020H (8:20 in the evening) on April 28, 2016.
The same were received by Forensic Chemist Perez who, per Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD016-092, certified that the
seized item with a net weight of 735.8 grams yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.
Fourth, the slight discrepancy in the weight of the seized item as stated in Chemistry Report and during the ocular
inspection was satisfactorily explained. The fourth link in the chain of custody refers to the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
From the foregoing discussion, there is no reason to doubt the identity of the illegal drugs presented before the RTC.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision of the CA was affirmed. Appellant is convicted of
violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640. He is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT
and ordered to pay a FINE of P500,000.00
6. People v. Pis-an | Sec. 11 | G.R. No. 242692 | July 13, 2020 | Ivy
plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES | Defendants-appellants: DAVID JAMES PIS-AN y DIPUTADO

Wt of Drugs: 1 sachet (test-buy op); 14 sachet of shabu - 9.38 grams (enforcement of search warrant)
Location: Dumaguete City Date of Incident: February 16, 2015
Poseur-buyer: *delete if not applicable
Information: Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Section 11)

RTC: guilty of illegal possession of drugs in violation of Section 11, Art II of RA 9165
Penalty: 20 years and one day to life imprisonment and a fine of P400,000.00
CA: affirmed RTC

SC: affirmed with modification (penalty modified) - 20 years and one day, as minimum, to 30 years, as maximum, and to
pay a fine of P400,000.00.
Mode: Ordinary Appeal | JEMAA:
Doctrine:
❖ Chain of custody: As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking,
physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation
of the same. The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain
required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the
media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an
elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media. The law requires
the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any
suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
❖ Elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs: For the charge of illegal possession of a dangerous drug
to prosper, it must be proven that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a
PDFelement
prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
FACTS:
February 16, 2015 (Test buy op): Pis-an was placed under surveillance after the police received a tip from a confidential
informant that the former was involved in drug dealing. The police then conducted a test-buy operation and was able to
recover from Pis-an one transparent plastic sachet which yielded positive results for shabu
February 18, 2015 (Application for Search warrant):PO3 Alcoran applied for a search warrant before the RTC of
Dumaguete City. The same day, a search warrant was issued authorizing the search of Pis-an’s residence located in Brgy.
Camanjac, Dumaguete City.
February 25, 2015 (Enforcement of Search Warrant): The team headed by PO2 Calumba and PO2 Banua enforced the
warrant and seized one red coin purse containing 14 pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing
white crystalline substance (later found out to be shabu) together with others (4 lighters, 2 plastic straws, 2 metal clips, 3
needles, 3 scissors, 7 tin foils) and a total of P3,050.
Calumba marked the items at the porch of the house while Banua took photos. An inventory was made in the presence of
Pis-an and Brgy. Kagawad Dicen; together with media practitioner Gallarde and DOJ representative Benlot, who had both
arrived by then. Pis-an and the seized items were then brought to the Provincial Intelligence Branch satellite office where
a Memorandum Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test and a Return of Search Warrant were prepared and
signed by PO2 Calumba.
That afternoon, at the crime laboratory, PCInsp. Llena received the confiscated items from PO2 Calumba and proceeded
to conduct confirmatory tests thereon. It was found out that the substance inside the 14 sachets was shabu (9.38 grams).
Pis-an was also subjected to a urine test, the same also tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. (shabu).
On March 10, 2015, an information for illegal possession of drugs was filed against Pis-an. When arraigned, he pleaded
not guilty.
Defense/Petitioner’s contention:
During trial, Pis-an denied the charge against him and testified that
(i) on February 25, 2015, at around 5:00 a.m., police officers barged through their gates and demanded to search the
place; 15 and
(ii) he asked to see the search warrant but PO2 Calumba replied that there was no need to show the same as it was
already signed by higher authorities.
Pis-an contended that he was not able to witness the search as he was made to stay on the porch of the house.
RTC Ruling:
❖ guilty of illegal possession of 9.38 grams of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
❖ sentenced to suffer a penalty of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]400,000.00)
➢ Section 11, paragraph 2 (2), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as follows:
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four
hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities
of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of x x x methamphetamine
hydrochloride or "shabu"[.]
CA Ruling: affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA observed:
PDFelement
1. that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved as each link in the chain of
custody rule was duly established by the prosecution.
2. that Pis-an's allegation that no search warrant was shown to him was belied by the fact that his signature appears
thereon.
ISSUE: whether the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD: YES.
ALL THE ELEMENTS WERE PRESENT
For the charge of illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, it must be proven that (1) the accused was in
possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by
law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
In the case at bench, the courts a quo correctly held that all the aforementioned elements are present here, since: (i) by
virtue of a valid search warrant, the police officers recovered, among others, 14 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance which later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; (ii) such
possession is not authorized by law as Pis-an himself admitted during the pre-trial; and (iii) the prohibited drugs were
uncovered from Pis-an's house which was a prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE UNDER SECTION 21 WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH
In the case of Aranas y Dimaala v. People, the SC ruled that:
“As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and
photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The law further
requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the
items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the
amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; or
(b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service OR the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the
establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.”
Records reveal that right after Pis-an was arrested, the police officers immediately took custody of the seized items and
marked them right there and then. They also conducted the requisite inventory and photography in the presence of all
three (3) insulating witnesses as required by R.A. No. 9165 prior to its amendment, namely: Brgy. Kagawan Dicen; media
practitioner Gallarde; and DOJ representative Benlot. Thereafter, PO2 Calumba delivered the confiscated drugs to
PCInsp. Llena for laboratory examination. Later, confirmatory tests on all 14 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets would
yield a positive finding for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or more commonly known as shabu. Clearly,
therefore, the chain of custody over the seized drugs remained unbroken as the recovery and proper handling of the
corpus delicti were sufficiently shown.
LIFE IMPRISONMENT SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED
the maximum penalty of life imprisonment may only be imposed when the crime of illegal possession was committed in
the presence of two or more persons or in a social gathering pursuant to Section 13 of R.A. No. 9165. Here, since it was
not shown Pis-an was caught possessing the dangerous drugs during a party, or at a social gathering or meeting, or in the
proximate company of at least two persons, the maximum imposable penalty should be below life imprisonment which
is currently pegged 40 years and 1 day.
HENCE, the ruling of the CA is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Penalty imposed by the SC is 20 years and one (1)
day, as minimum, to 30 years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00.
PDFelement
7. Dela Cruz v. People | Sec. 15 | G.R. No. 200748 | July 23, 2014 | Jolo
plaintiff-appellee: JAIME D. DELA CRUZ | defendants-appellants: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Wt of drugs: Methamphetamine Hydrochloride Location: Cebu City Date of Incident: January 31, 2006
Information: Section 15, Art. II of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt
CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC
SC: Acquitted the petitioner
Mode: Petition for Review on Certiorari | JEMAA: None
FACTS: Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165,
or The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Office of
the Ombudsman - Visayas, in an Information dated 14 February 2006. On or about the 31st day of January 2006, at Cebu
City, Philippines, accused, JAIME D. DE LA CRUZ, a public officer, having been duly appointed and qualified to such
public position as Police Officer 2 of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned in the Security Service Group of the
Cebu City Police Office, after having been arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in an
entrapment operation, was found positive for use of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE commonly known as
"Shabu", the dangerous drug after a confirmatory test conducted on said accused.
Version of the Prosecution:
The evidence of the prosecution reveals that at 8:00 a.m. of 31 January 2006, the agents and special investigators of the
National Bureau of Investigation, Central Visayas Regional Office (NBI-CEVRO) or simply NBI, received a Complaint from
Corazon Absin (Corazon) and Charito Escobido (Charito). The complainants claimed that at 1:00 a.m. of that same day,
Ariel Escobido (Ariel), the live-in partner of Corazon and son of Charito, was picked up by several unknown male persons
believed to be police officers for allegedly selling drugs. An errand boy gave a number to the complainants, and when the
latter gave the number a ring, they were instructed to proceed to the Gorordo Police Office located along Gorordo Avenue,
Cebu City. In the said police office, they met "James" who demanded from them ₱100,000, later lowered to ₱40,000, in
exchange for the release of Ariel. After the meeting, the complainants proceeded to the NBI-CEVRO to file a complaint
and narrate the circumstances of the meeting to the authorities. While at the NBI-CEVRO, Charitoeven received calls
supposedly from "James" instructing her to bring the money as soon as possible.
The special investigators at the NBI-CEVRO verified the text messages received by the complainants. A team was
immediately formed to implement an entrapment operation, which took place inside a Jollibee branch at the corner of
Gen. Maxilom and Gorordo Avenues, Cebu City. The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz by using a pre-marked
500 bill dusted with fluorescent powder, which was made part of the amount demanded by "James" and handed by
Corazon. Petitioner was later brought to the forensic laboratory of the NBI-CEVRO where forensic examination was done
by forensic chemist Rommel Paglinawan. Petitioner was required to submit his urine for drug testing. It later yielded a
positive result for presence of dangerous drugs as indicated in the confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology
(Dangerous Drugs) Report No. 2006-TDD-2402 dated 16 February 2006.
Version of the Defense:
Petitioner denied all the charges and testified that while eating in Jollibee, he was allegedly arrested for extortion by the
NBI Agents. When he was at the NBI office, he was required to extract urine for drug examination, but he refused saying
he wanted it to be done by the PNP Crime Laboratory and not by the NBI. His request was denied. He also requested to
be allowed to call his lawyer prior to the taking of his urine sample, to no avail.
ISSUE: Whether or not the drug tests conducted upon the petitioner is legal
HELD: NO. The Drug Test provided in Sec. 15 of RA 9165 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested for any
unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. 9165. "[A] person apprehended or arrested" cannot
literally mean any person apprehended or arrested for any crime.The phrase must be read in context and understood in
PDFelement
consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under
Article II of the law. To make the provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed under
Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning. making the phrase "a person apprehended or arrested" in
Section 15 applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts, not only under R.A. 9165 but for all other
crimes, is tantamount to a mandatory drug testing of all persons apprehended or arrested for any crime.
In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs was only in the form of residue on the drug paraphernalia, and the
accused were found positive for use of dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence obtained
admissible, and the chain of custody intact, the law enforcers should have filed charges under Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or
for use of dangerous drugs and, if there was no residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec. 14 (Possession
of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or
Meetings).
The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral compulsion to
extort communications from the accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be material. Purely
mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance
and guiding hand of counsel is not required. (People vs. Olvis, 238 Phil. 513 [1987]) The essence of the right against self
incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against himself through a testimonial act. (People
vs. Casinillo, 213 SCRA 777 [1992]; People vs. Tranca, 235 SCRA 455 [1994]; People vs. Rondero, 378 Phil. 123 [1999])
Hence, it has been held that a woman charged with adultery may be compelled to submit to physical examination to
determine her pregnancy; (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62 [1920]) and an accused may be compelled to submit to
physical examination and to have a substance taken from his body for medical determination as to whether he was
suffering from gonorrhea which was contracted by his victim;(U.S. vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145 [1912]) to expel morphine
from his mouth; (U.S. vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735 [1917]) to have the outline of his foot traced to determine its identity
with bloody footprints; (U.S. vs. Salas, 25 Phil. 337 [1913]; U.S. vs. Zara, 42 Phil. 308 [1921]) and to be photographed or
measured, or his garments or shoes removed or replaced, or to move his body to enable the foregoing things to be
done.(People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244 [1950])
In the instant case, the Court did not see how a urine sample could be material to the charge of extortion. The RTC and
the CA, therefore, both erred when they held that the extraction of petitioner’s urine for purposes of drug testing was
"merely a mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a custodial investigation."
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the CA is SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ACQUITTED.
8. People v. Sullano | Sec. 15 | G.R. No. 228373 | March 12, 2018 | JL
Petitioner: People of the Phlippines | Respondent: PO1 JOHNNY K. SULLANO

Drugs: tested positive for shabu after a random mandatory drug test
Location: Butuan City Date of Incident: October 17, 2012
Information: Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Illegal use of shabu
RTC: granted the demurrer to evidence of accused PO1 Sullano and dismissed the case for violation of Section 15,
Article II, RA 9165
CA: Affirmed RTC
SC: Affirmed CA and RTC
Mode: petition for review on certiorari | JEMAA: N/A
FACTS: Senior Superintendent Nerio T. Bermudo, City Director of the Butuan City Police Office, ordered fifty randomly
selected police officers under the Butuan City Police Office to undergo drug testing pursuant to Section 36, Article III of
R.A. No. 9165. Among those who underwent testing was the respondent, a police officer at Butuan City Police Station.
Respondent's urine sample was received, and according to the Initial Chemistry Report of the Philippine National Police
PDFelement
Regional Crime Laboratory Office 13, the test conducted on respondent's urine specimen gave a positive result for the
presence of methamphetamine. The confirmatory test yielded the same result.
Given the result of the random drug test and confirmatory test, P/S Supt. Bermudo filed a Complaint Affidavit against
respondent for violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. In lieu of a counter-affidavit, respondent filed a
manifestation, wherein he claimed that he voluntarily submitted to the random drug test, the urine sample he submitted
gave a positive result to the presence of methamphetamine; and he did not use the dangerous drug but had no means
to contest the test's veracity; that he entered into a rehabilitation program with Cocoon Foundation for Substance
Abuse. He concluded by pleading for the dismissal of the complaint against him.
Assistant City Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of the complaint through a resolution which was reversed by
Deputy City Prosecutor in an Order finding probable cause against respondent. Consequently, information was filed.
Petitioner maintains that under Section 36, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, arrest or apprehension of the accused is not
required prior to the submission to drug examination. Random drug tests are allowed under certain circumstances,
which include the instant case. In his Demurrer to Evidence, respondent argued that the case against him should be
dismissed as the State failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the
essential elements of the crime were not proven as it was never asserted that respondent was apprehender or arrested
or actually caught using any dangerous drug. |
RTC: The RTC granted the demurrer to evidence relying upon the wording of Sec. 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 holding
that accused was arrested or apprehended committing a crime and therefore should be subjected to a drug examination,
considering that this could be alleged as an aggravating circumstance in any criminal case filed against him. In this case,
the accused was never arrested nor apprehended committing an offense. He was only subjected to a random drug
examination per directive of the PNP Superior Officer. Therefore, it was held that accused should not be charged for
violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165, but, should be administratively charged for being a user of prohibited drugs
under the other provisions of R.A. 9165.
CA’s decision on petitioner’s petition for certiorari: CA was not convinced of petitioner’s argument.
The elements to be charged under Section 15 of RA 9165 are as follows: (1) a person is apprehended or arrested; (2)
said person was subjected to a drug test; and (3) the person tested positive for use of any dangerous drug after a
confirmatory test.
In the case at bar, the first element for private respondent to be charged under Section 15 of RA 9165 is absent. Private
respondent was not apprehended nor arrested.
Petitioner’s contention to SC: Insisted that Section 15, Article II of RA No 9165 does not exclusively apply to
circumstances where the accused was apprehended or arrested. To petitioner, once the results of the mandatory drug test
showed a positive result, the person tested may be criminally prosecuted under Section 15, Article II of RA 9165.
Petitioner maintains that under Section 36, Article II of Ra No 9165, arrest or apprehension of the accused is not required
prior to the submission to drug examination. Random drug tests are allowed under certain circumstances, which include
the instant case.
Petitioner further insists that the case of Dela Cruz v. People (2014) does not preclude the application of Section 36,
Article III of RA No 9165 in relation to Section 15, Article II of RA No. 9165. To petitioner, the narrow interpretation of
Section 15 will result in an absurd situation where an individual, found to be positive for the use of dangerous drugs
through a random mandatory drug test, may not be penalized.To petiPetit|||
ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of violation Section 15, Article II of RA No 9165
whether Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehension or arrest of a person for the latter to be
considered as violating the provision
PDFelement
HELD: NO. SC affirmed the RTC and CA’s decision.
At issue, in this case, is the construction of the phrase “a person apprehended or arrested” under Section 15 in
relation to Section 36, Article II of RA 9165.
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. — A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous
drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for
the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time,
he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging
from Fifty thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not
be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for
under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing. – Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of
the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps
in setting the price of the drug test with DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug test. The drug
testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the
type of the drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. Drug test certificates issued by
accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the date of issue which may be used for other purposes.
The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing:(e) Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement
agencies. – Officers and members of the military, police and other law enforcement agencies shall undergo an annual mandatory
drug test;
The Court finds no difficulty in harmonizing Section 36 with a strict interpretation of Section 15. Section 36, last paragraph
states “[I]n addition to the above-stated penalties in this Section, those found to be positive for dangerous drugs use shall
be subject to the provisions of Section 15 of this Act.” This may be construed to mean that rehabilitation for six (6) months
in a government center, as stated in Section 15, may be imposed on those found positive of use of dangerous drugs
through a random drug test. This reading of the provisions would still pursue the intent of the law to encourage not the
prosecution and incarceration of those using dangerous drugs, but their rehabilitation. This reading especially finds
relevance in this case as respondent voluntarily submitted himself to rehabilitation.
Petitioner wishes to expand the coverage of Section 15 to cover those under Section 36, and beyond what is specifically
limited by the wording of the statute under Section 15, even when the information only alleges a violation of Section 15.
Because of the strict construction of penal laws, this is not possible.
Ruling in Dela Cruz v People is helpful in this case
“A person apprehended or arrested” cannot literally mean any person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The
phrase must be read in context and understood in consonance with RA 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested
or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law. To make the provision applicable to all persons
arrested or apprehended for any crime not listed under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning.
Furthermore, to make this provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts, not only
under RA 9165 but for all other crimes, is tantamount to a mandatory drug testing of all persons apprehended or
arrested for any crime, which would run counter to the SC pronouncement in Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs
Board and PDEA.
Section 15 cannot be expanded to include respondent
The information against the respondent is straightforward: respondent “willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use
methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, which is a dangerous drug and found positive for use, after
a confirmatory test.” Nowhere in the information was Section 36 mentioned.
PDFelement
Urging the inclusion of Section 36 in accusing the respondent of the crime will deprive the latter of the opportunity to
prepare his defense and violate his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
Furthermore, a grant of the petition would also expose respondent to double jeopardy.
Considering the above, the inescapable conclusion is that Section 15 cannot be expanded to include respondent, who
underwent mandatory drug testing pursuant to Section 36 (e), Article III of RA No. 9165 where the information only
alleged a violation of Section 15.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The CA Resolution is AFFIRMED.
9. People v. Suating | Sec. 21 | G.R. No. 220142 | January 29, 2020 | Jammy
plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines | defendants-appellants: Ronald Suating

Wt of drugs: 0.1583 and 0.14 grams of marijuana Location: Silay City, Negros Occidental
Date of Incident: 11-9-2011 | Poseur-buyer: PO2 Bernl, P02 Libo-on
Information: Two separate (2) Informations were filed for violations of Sections 56 and 117 of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
RTC: Convicted
CA: Affirmed
SC: Acquitted. Prosecution failed to prove Suating’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt
Mode: petition for review on certiorari | JEMAA: n/a
FACTS: Acting on a tip from concerned constituents and barangay officials, the PNP of Silay City effected a surveillance
to verify whether or not Suating was selling marijuana within the area of Barangay Mambulac Elementary School. After
several test buys, the Information against Suating was confirmed.
In coordination with the Regional Office PDEA in Iloilo City, the police officers planned a buy-bust operation. They
prepared three (3) P20.00 bills. PO2 Reynaldo Bernil handed the marked money to a confidential asset who was the
designated poseur-buyer.
On the afternoon of November 9, 2011, the operation ensued. The poseur-buyer went to the premises of Barangay
Mambulac Elementary School, ahead of the police officers. Shortly thereafter, he called PO2 Bernil when Suating was
already "within his sight." The rest of the police officers followed, positioning themselves approximately 10 meters away
from the area of operation and about 50 meters away from the school.
PO2 Bernil was the point person of the entrapment. He saw the poseur-buyer approach Suating and engage in a short
conversation with him. He also witnessed when Suating left the area of operation, only to return to the poseur-buyer after
a few minutes. While Suating and the poseur-buyer were talking, the latter took out the marked money from his pocket
and gave it to Suating. In exchange, Suating handed unknown articles suspected to be marijuana.
After the sale, the poseur-buyer left the area. He proceeded to where PO2 Bernil was in order to surrender the large stick
of suspected marijuana cigarettes bought from Suating. PO2 Bernil then handed the item to PO2 Ian Libo-on, who marked
it with "BOK-1."
PO2 Bernil and the other police officers immediately moved towards Suating and restrained his hands. After introducing
themselves as persons of authority, they apprehended Suating and informed him of his constitutional rights. Suating's
father, along with the other unidentified individuals, attempted to stop the arrest but to no avail.
Thereafter, the police officers brought Suating to a police station in Silay City, and proceeded to conduct a body search on
him in the presence of Kagawad Jose Junsay of Barangay Mambulac. Found in his possession were the marked money
used during the operation, together with another large rolled cigarette stick of suspected marijuana
PDFelement
RTC convicted Suating of the charges.
The RTC did not find merit in Suating's contention that the buy-bust operation did not happen, specifying how Suating was
apprehended through a well-planned entrapment, which was conducted after monitoring and validation by the police
officers.
The RTC found the testimonies of police officers Bernil and Libo-on to be "detailed and straightforward. Hinging on the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties, and in the absence of any convincing proof that they
have ill intent to falsely testify against Suating, the trial court upheld the testimonies of the arresting officers.
CA ruled against Suating.
It held that the illegal sale transaction was effectively completed when Suating gave the hand-rolled marijuana cigarette to
the poseur-buyer in exchange for the marked money. As to the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
Suating failed to persuade that he had legal authority to possess the marijuana cigarette found when he was frisked.
Moreover, his previous act of selling marijuana to the poseur buyer showed his intention to "freely and consciously "
possess illicit drugs.
Relative to the alleged non-conformity with the chain of custody, the CA underscored that the prosecution was able to
prove that there was "no gap or confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and examination" of the confiscated illicit
drugs
Defense/Petitioner’s contention: Suating detailed in his testimony, which the witnesses corroborated, that he was
allegedly buying fish in the flea market of Barangay Mambulac on the day of the buy-bust operation, when a police officer
suddenly apprehended him. The police officer brought him to a room in Silay City Police Station where they asked him
certain questions. When Barangay Kagawad Junsay arrived, Suating was frisked. However, they were only able to
recover two pesos and fifty centavos (P2.50) from his possession. Thereafter, the police officers took his photo, made him
sign a document, and later brought him to the Negros Occidental Police Provincial Office where he was made to urinate in
a disposable cup.
ISSUE: Whether or not Suating is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
HELD: NO.
In order to guarantee a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the following:
(1) The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
In sum, the occurrence of the sale should be established. Moreover, the object of the deal should also be offered as
evidence and must similarly be proven as the same one confiscated from the accused.
As to the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements should be ascertained:
[1] The accused was in possession of dangerous drugs;
[2] such possession was not authorized by law; and
[3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.
In both cases, the confiscated illicit drugs from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges, "i.e., the
body or substance of the crime which establishes that a crime has actually been committed." It is of paramount
importance to maintain the integrity and the identity of the corpus delicti. Thus, the chain of custody rule warrants that
"unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."
PDFelement
In this case, a prearranged police entrapment led to Suating's apprehension. However, despite a carefully planned and
coordinated buy-bust operation, there were still irregularities committed in the course of the entrapment, which
caused apparent lapses to the chain of custody rule.
For this reason, the identity of the corpus delicti was not duly established beyond reasonable doubt. We are no
longer certain whether or not the miniscule quantities of 0.1583 and 0.14 grams of marijuana, presented as evidence
against Suating in court, were the very same ones allegedly confiscated from him.
Chain of Custody
The chain of custody is "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs. . . of each stage, from the
time of seizure [or] confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction."
As a means of verifying evidence, it demands "that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by [proof] sufficient to support
a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be."
Accordingly, the prosecution must be able to monitor each of the following links in the chain of custody over the illicit
drugs:
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 by the forensic chemist to the court.
Accordingly, police officers are mandated to strictly observe the procedure for confiscation and custody of prohibited drugs
under Republic Act No. 9165. The initial procedural safeguard under Article II, Section 2190 thereof provides:
(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;
In effecting the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165, the Implementing Rules and Regulations read:
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; Provided, furtlter, 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.
Notwithstanding the mandatory directive of the law as construed from its use of the word "shall," the police officers
miserably failed to comply with the specific procedures in handling the seized marijuana cigarettes allegedly
taken from accused-appellant.
Marking of the confiscated illicit drugs not done immediately in the presence of accused
The initial link in the chain of custody is the marking of the confiscated illicit drugs. Marking precludes any contamination,
switching or planting of evidence. Through it, the evidence is separated from the corpus of other similar and correlated
evidence, starting from confiscation until its disposal at the close of criminal proceedings. To be at par with the rule on the
chain of custody, the marking of the confiscated articles should be undertaken: (1) in the presence of the accused; and (2)
PDFelement
immediately upon seizure. This effectively guarantees that the articles seized "are the same items that entered] the chain
and are eventually the ones offered in evidence. "
In this case, the prosecution offered no reason as to why the marking of the seized marijuana labelled "BOK-1" was not
immediately done after confiscation, but rather only after a considerable lapse of time, thereto when the poseur buyer was
able to leave the area of operation, away from the sight of the accused. Moreover, they particularly failed to explain
why the police officers could not have promptly marked the item in the presence of Suating, if only to remove any
uncertainty that the marijuana cigarette marked by PO2 Libo-on, and later subjected to laboratory testing, was the very
same one allegedly sold by the accused to the poseur-buyer. Here, an apparent break in the chain of custody already
existed before the item was even marked.
Failure to present poseur-buyer
Additionally, the prosecution's failure to present the poseur-buyer is prejudicial to their cause. To emphasize, the
negotiations during the assailed transaction was intimately between the poseur buyer and Suating. PO2 Bernil, whose
exact location from the area of operation was not specifically stated, was merely observing from a distance. Considering
that the poseur buyer was the one who has personal knowledge of the illegal sale transaction since he was the one who
conducted the same, his testimony is not merely corroborative to that of the police officers. The quantity of dangerous
drugs here is "so small that the reason for not presenting the poseur-buyer does not square with such a miniscule
amount."
Inconsistencies in the narration
While there was a narration that the confiscated items were inventoried and photographed in the police station, it is not,
however, clear whether such procedures were done in the presence of the required third-party witnesses. To underscore,
the prosecution's narrative in the Court of Appeals' Decision states that both the inventory and photograph of the
confiscated articles were undertaken before "an elected public official." However, in the Appellee's Brief, the mandatory
procedures were allegedly made "in the presence of Hon. Ireneo Celis and the Barangay Kagawad."
The inconsistencies in the prosecution's narration of events points out that the required attendance of representatives
(from both the media and the DOJ) during the inventory and photographing was not faithfully complied with, despite
having more than enough time to secure their presence during preparation of the allegedly well-planned entrapment.
Although their absence does not per se make the seized articles inadmissible as evidence, the prosecution must
prove that it has acceptable reason for such failure, or a showing that it exerted "genuine and sufficient effort" to
secure their presence, which, in this case, the prosecution failed to do.
Attendance of third-party witnesses
The attendance of third-party witnesses is called for in order "to ensure that the chain of custody rule is observed and
thus, [it] remove[s] any suspicion of tampering, switching, planting, or contamination of evidence which could considerably
affect a case. " Even assuming that the inventory and photographing of the seized articles were made in the
presence of two (2) elected public officials-still, the superfluity cannot justify the absence of the other required
personalities therein.
With the glaring lapses committed by the police officers, which inevitably tainted the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized illicit drugs, we cannot help but subscribe to Suating 's contention that there is a possibility that the marijuana stick
allegedly confiscated from his possession was merely planted, considering that the body search was belatedly done at the
police station and only after more than an hour from his apprehension.
Finally, the prosecution's narration of facts ended when the confiscated articles were examined by Forensic Officer
Puentespina, whose findings under Chemistry Report No. D-217-2011 provided that the items yielded positive for
marijuana. This finding, however, leaves the following questions unresolved: (1) did the confiscated drugs remain under
PDFelement
Forensic Officer Puentespina's custody; and (2) were they conveyed to some other place until their presentation in court
as evidence? The lack of details on the post-chemical examination custody of the confiscated illicit drugs creates
another substantial gap in the chain of custody rule, particularly on the "turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court."
Section 21 and Non-conformity therewith
Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 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."
Moreover, it "spells out matters that are imperative." Even performing actions, which seemingly near compliance
but do not really conform to its requisites, is not enough. More so, "when the prosecution claims that the seizure
of drugs is the result of carefully planned operations, as is the case here."
In addition, the prosecution cannot merely assert the saving clause under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 9165. Non-conformity with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is certainly not fatal to the cause of the
prosecution, as long as the lapses committed by police officers in the handling of evidence were "recognized and
explained in terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must
be shown to have also been preserved."
However, these requirements were not present in this case, since the prosecution, to begin with, failed to acknowledge
that there were lapses committed by police officers while dealing with the custody of the seized illicit drugs. These
irregularities created major gaps in the chain of custody rule, which, if remained unjustified, is prejudicial to the claim of
the prosecution.
To emphasize, only 0.15 119 and 0.14 grams of marijuana were confiscated from accused-appellant. For this reason,
courts must exercise "heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in
evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs, for these can be readily planted and tampered. "
Contrary to the rulings of both the trial and appellate court, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties cannot stand in favor of the police officers on account of the glaring lapses committed in handling the seized illicit
drugs. To underscore, this presumption is neither definite nor conclusive. By itself, it cannot overturn the constitutional
safeguarded presumption of innocence. When the assailed official act "is irregular on its face, as in this case, an adverse
presumption arises as a matter of course. "
Considering that non-conformity with Section 21 equates to "failure in establishing the identity of corpus delicti,
[which is] an essential element" of the charges, Suating's acquittal is therefore in order.
WHEREFORE, the CA’s Decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant is ACQUITTED for failure of
the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
10. People v. Lim | Sec. 21 | G.R. No. 231989 | 04 Sept. & 13 Nov. 2018 | Kate
plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES | defendants-appellants: ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA

Wt of drugs: 0.02 gram of shabu Location: Cagayan De Oro City Date of Incident: October 19, 2010
Poseur-buyer: IO1 Carin
Information: Illegal possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu); illegal sale of shabu

RTC: The RTC handed a guilty verdict on Lim for illegal possession and sale of shabu and acquitted Gorres for lack of
sufficient evidence linking him as a conspirator.
CA: Affirmed RTC
SC: ACQUITTED LIM
PDFelement
Mode: Appeal | JEMAA:
FACTS: Based on a report of a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Romy" has been engaged in the sale of
prohibited drugs in Cagayan de Oro City, they were directed by their Regional Director, Lt. Col. Edwin Layese, to gather
for a buy-bust operation. Using their service vehicle, the team left the regional office. The CI knocked at the door and
uttered, "ayo, nong Romy." Gorres came out and invited them to enter. Inside, Lim was sitting on the sofa while watching
the television. When the CI introduced IO1 Carin as a shabu buyer, Lim nodded and told Gorres to get one inside the
bedroom. Gorres stood up and did as instructed. After he came out, he handed a small medicine box to Lim, who then
took one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic of shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin. In turn, IO1 Carin paid him with the
buy-bust money.
After examining the plastic sachet, IO1 Carin executed a missed call to IO1 Orellan, which was the pre-arranged signal.
The latter, with the rest of the team members, immediately rushed to Lim's house. When they arrived, IO1 Carin and the
CI were standing near the door. They then entered the house because the gate was opened. IO1 Orellan declared that
they were PDEA agents and informed Lim and Gorres, who were visibly surprised, of their arrest for selling dangerous
drug. They were ordered to put their hands on their heads and to squat on the floor. IO1 Orellan recited the Miranda rights
to them. Thereafter, IO1 Orellan conducted a body search on both. When he frisked Lim, no deadly weapon was found,
but something was bulging in his pocket. IO1 Orellan ordered him to pull it out. Inside the pocket were the buy-bust money
and a transparent rectangular plastic box about 3x4 inches in size. They could see that it contained a plastic sachet of a
white substance. As for Gorres, no weapon or illegal drug was seized.
IO1 Orellan took into custody the ₱500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white substance, and a disposable
lighter. 101 Carin turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the house, IO1 Orellan marked
the two plastic sachets. Despite exerting efforts to secure the attendance of the representative from the media and
barangay officials, nobody arrived to witness the inventory-taking.
The buy-bust team brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, with IO1 Orellan in possession of the seized
items. Upon arrival, they "booked" the two accused and prepared the letters requesting for the laboratory examination on
the drug evidence and for the drug test on the arrested suspects as well as the documents for the filing of the case.
Likewise, IO1 Orellan made the Inventory Receipt of the confiscated items. It was not signed by Lim and Gorres. Also,
there was no signature of an elected public official and the representatives of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the
media as witnesses. Pictures of both accused and the evidence seized were taken.
The day after, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered both accused and the drug specimens to Regional Crime Laboratory
Office 10. IO1 Orellan was in possession of the sachets of shabu from the regional office to the crime lab. PSI Caceres,
who was a Forensic Chemist, and Police Officer 2 (P02) Bajas personally received the letter-requests and the two pieces
of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PSI Caceres got urine samples from Lim
and Gorres and conducted screening and confirmatory tests on them. Based on her examination, only Lim was found
positive for the presence of shabu. With respect to the two sachets of white crystalline substance, both were found to be
positive of shabu after a chromatographic examination was conducted by PSI Caceres. PSI Caceres, likewise, put her
own marking on the cellophane containing the two sachets of shabu. After that, she gave them to the evidence custodian.
As to the buy-bust money, the arresting team turned it over to the fiscal's office during the inquest.
RTC Ruling: With regard to the illegal possession of a sachet of shabu, the RTC held that the weight of evidence favors
the positive testimony of IO1 Orellan over the feeble and uncorroborated denial of Lim. As to the sale of shabu, it ruled
that the prosecution was able to establish the identity of the buyer, the seller, the money paid to the seller, and the delivery
of the shabu. The testimony of IO1 Carin was viewed as simple, straightforward and without any hesitation or
prevarication as she detailed in a credible manner the buy-bust transaction that occurred.
In so far as Gorres is concerned, the RTC opined that the evidence presented were not strong enough to support the
claim that there was a conspiracy between him and Lim because it was insufficiently shown that he knew what the box
PDFelement
contained. It also noted Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM 196 & 197-2010, which indicated that Gorres was "NEGATIVE" of
the presence of any illicit drug based on his urine sample.
CA Ruling: It agreed with the finding of the trial court that the prosecution adequately established all the elements of
illegal sale of a dangerous drug as the collective evidence presented during the trial showed that a valid buy-bust
operation was conducted. Likewise, all the elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug was proven.
Lim resorted to denial and could not present any proof or justification that he was fully authorized by law to possess the
same. The CA was unconvinced with his contention that the prosecution failed to prove the identity and integrity of the
seized prohibited drugs. For the appellate court, it was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated drugs were not compromised. The witnesses for the prosecution were able to testify on every link in the chain
of custody, establishing the crucial link in the chain from the time the seized items were first discovered until they were
brought for examination and offered in evidence in court. Anent Lim's defense of denial and frame-up, the CA did not
appreciate the same due to lack of clear and convincing evidence that the police officers were inspired by an improper
motive. Instead, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was applied.
ISSUE: Whether or not defendant is guilty of illegal possession and sale of shabu
HELD: NO. Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 states that (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: 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; Provided,
further, that noncompliance 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.
The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission
into evidence. To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence admissible, the proponent needs only to prove a
rational basis from which to conclude that the evidence is what the party claims it to be. In other words, in a criminal
case, the prosecution must offer sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an item still
is what the government claims it to be.
Thus, 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.
Seizure and marking of the illegal drug as well as the turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer
We have held that the immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may be
excused in instances when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of
the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those who have the
resources and capability to mount a counter-assault. The present case is not one of those.
Here, IO1 Orellan took into custody the ₱500.00 bill, the plastic box with the plastic sachet of white substance, and a
disposable lighter. IO1 Carin also turned over to him the plastic sachet that she bought from Lim. While in the house, IO1
Orellan marked the two plastic sachets. IO1 Orellan testified that he immediately conducted the marking and physical
inventory of the two sachets of shabu. To ensure that they were not interchanged, he separately marked the item sold by
PDFelement
Lim to 101 Carin and the one that he recovered from his possession upon body search as BB AEO 10-19-10 and AEO-RI
10-19-10, respectively, with both bearing his initial/signature.
Evident, however, is the absence of an elected public official and representatives of the DOJ and the media to witness the
physical inventory and photograph of the seized items. In fact, their signatures do not appear in the Inventory Receipt.
In this case, IO1 Orellan testified that no members of the media and barangay officials arrived at the crime scene because
it was late at night and it was raining, making it unsafe for them to wait at Lim's house. 102 Orcales similarly declared that
the inventory was made in the PDEA office considering that it was late in the evening and there were no available media
representative and barangay officials despite their effort to contact them. He admitted that there are times when they do
not inform the barangay officials prior to their operation as they might leak the confidential information. We are of the view
that these justifications are unacceptable as there was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.
The prosecution likewise failed to explain why they did not secure the presence of a representative from the Department
of Justice (DOJ). While the arresting officer, IO1 Orellan, stated in his Affidavit that they only tried to coordinate with the
barangay officials and the media, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to show that they tried to contact a
DOJ representative.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses also failed to establish the details of an earnest effort to coordinate with and
secure presence of the required witnesses. They also failed to explain why the buy-bust team felt "unsafe" in waiting for
the representatives in Lim's house, considering that the team is composed of at least ten (10) members, and the two
accused were the only persons in the house.
PDFelement
11. People v. Ruiz | Sec. 21 | G.R. No. 243635 | November 27, 2019 | Vee
plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES | defendants-appellants: PRISCILA RUIZ y TICA

Wt of drugs: 9.26 grams shabu Location: San Pedro, Laguna Date of Incident: 02-26-2015
Poseur-buyer: PO2 Tibuc | Mode: Appeal | JEMAA: none
Information RTC CA SC
illegal sale (Sec. 5) guilty guilty Ruiz acquitted. police officers

failed to comply with the
illegal possession (Sec. 11) guilty guilty 2-witness rule and failure to
prove the corpus delicti
illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (Sec. 12) not proven
FACTS: The buy-bust operation was conducted in Southville Subdivision, Barangay San Antonio, San Pedro, Laguna.
PO2 Tibuc and the confidential informant proceeded on foot to a sari-sari store owned by appellant Ruiz, while PO2 Cailo
and the other officers stationed themselves on a street nearby. PO2 Tibuc and the confidential informant first bought
cigarettes. Then, the confidential informant asked, “te baka merun ka diyan iiscore sana kami.” Ruiz asked how much they
were going to purchase to which PO2 Tibuc said, “kukuha po sana kami ng singko.” Ruiz picked up a crossbody bag on
the floor and took out several pieces of plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. She then handed one
sachet to PO2 Tibuc, in exchange, the latter gave the P500.00 marked bill.
Upon receipt of the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance, PO2 Tibuc secretly placed a call in his cellphone to
PO2 Cailo as the pre-arranged signal that the sale of illegal drugs had been completed. Alerted by the missed call of PO2
Tibuc, PO2 Cailo immediately rushed to the crime scene. Just as PO2 Cailo was approaching the location, he observed a
young woman running towards the sari-sari store and shouting, “Lola, lola may mga pulis na paparating.” PO2 Tibuc also
observed the same young woman approach the sari-sari store alerting Ruiz of the arrival of the police. Thus, he took the
opportunity to introduce himself as a police officer and prevented Ruiz and the young woman, later identified as
Macaraeg, from leaving the sari-sari store.
After arrest, PO2 Tibuc seized the crossbody bag from Ruiz and opened the same to find 14 pieces of plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance and other paraphernalia. He then correspondingly marked at the same place of
arrest a total of 15 sachets. He also recovered the P500.00 bill with the markings “APT.”
The officers then brought Ruiz and Macaraeg to the police station in Calamba, Laguna for photographing and
inventory-taking of the seized items. A media representative signed the inventory. Thereafter, the documentary request for
laboratory examination of seized items was prepared. PO2 Tibuc brought the said items to the forensic chemist for
quantitative and qualitative examination. The chemistry report confirmed that the sachets were shabu.
RTC: Found Ruiz guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs only. Ruiz was acquitted of the
charge of illegal possession of paraphernalia. The RTC held that the prosecution was able to present all the elements of
illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. That Ruiz was arrested in flagrante delicto and that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been preserved.
CA: Affirmed. The CA found that there could not have been a mix-up in marking the dangerous drugs. PO2 Tibuc
sufficiently explained that he kept separate the plastic sachet seized from the buy-bust operation and the 14 plastic
sachets, by keeping the latter in the crossbody bag retrieved from Ruiz. While the inventory-taking and photographing
of the seized items did not take place at the crime scene, the CA still found compliance with the rules on custody
and disposition of confiscated or seized dangerous drugs.
The CA explained that the location of inventory-taking and photographing of seized items will depend on whether
or not a search warrant had been issued. When the seizure of items is supported by a search warrant, the
inventory-taking and photographing of seized items “must” be conducted at the place where the warrant was served. For
PDFelement
warrantless seizures, the CA held that the same must be conducted at the nearest police station or the nearest office of
the apprehending officers, whichever is practicable.
In this case, since the illegal drugs were taken pursuant to an arrest in flagrante delicto, the police officers were correct in
conducting the inventory-taking and photographing of seized items at the police station in Calamba City.
The CA also ruled that the absence of an elected official or a representative from the National Prosecution Service
was excused because what is important is establishing an unbroken chain of custody. Here, the CA held that the
prosecution witnesses were able to testify that the seized sachets of shabu are the same items taken to the police station,
subjected to laboratory examination and presented in court.
Defense/Contention on appeal to SC: corpus delicti was never established for failure to comply with the rules on
custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs under Section 21 of RA 9165.
Ruiz reiterates her position that (1) the sachet from the buy-bust sale and the 14 sachets retrieved from her could have
been mixed-up by PO2 Tibuc because he was in possession of all seized items prior to marking. Hence, there could not
have been any way for PO2 Tibuc to identify which of the sachets in his custody was from the buy-bust sale or those
retrieved from Ruiz by reason of her arrest. (2) In addition, the marking was not witnessed by any elective official, and
media or representative from the office of the National Prosecution Service, nor was the inventory-taking and
photographing of the seized items conducted at the place of seizure as required under the law.
(3) Ruiz also points out the gap or the undocumented transmittal of the seized items from the police station to the
evidence custodian and, later, from the evidence custodian to the forensic chemist, who conducted the qualitative and
quantitative examination. There were no records showing what happened to the seized items between the turnover by the
forensic chemist to the evidence custodian and, later, the presentation of the corpus delicti in open court.
ISSUE: WON Ruiz is guilty of the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs
HELD: NO. The police officers failed to comply with the two-witness rule during the inventory-taking and photographing of
the seized items and there is failure to prove the corpus delicti.
Failure to comply with the two-witness rule
The chain of custody rule set out in Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640 must be strictly observed. Under
RA 10640, the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items by the apprehending team shall
be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, and in the presence of the accused or the persons from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel. The law also mandates that
the foregoing be witnessed by specific persons, namely: (a) an elected public official; AND (b) a representative of
the National Prosecution Service OR the media.
Records show the police officers’ failure to comply with the foregoing rule. While the marking of the seized items took
place immediately after seizure and confiscation, it is undisputed that the same was conducted without the presence of
any of the additional witnesses prescribed by law. Likewise, only a media representative was present to sign the inventory
of the seized items prepared at the police station. The mandate of RA 10640 is clear that there be the presence of at
least two witnesses during the inventory-taking and photographing of the seized items. The sole presence of the
media representative will not suffice as compliance.
The law admits exceptions to compliance with the provisions on custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs.
These include presenting justifiable grounds for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved. Unfortunately, the Court did not find any explanation from the police officers why they failed
to observe the two-witness rule. There were no records or allegations that coordination had taken place with
elective officials or the office of the National Prosecution Service regarding the conduct of a buy-bust operation
nor a showing of an attempt to secure the presence of said persons aside from the media representative. The
officers had sufficient time to prepare the necessary documentation for the buy-bust operation, which should have
included securing the attendance of the required witnesses under the law.
PDFelement
Failure to prove the corpus delicti
The Court also ruled that it cannot uphold the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. The document entitled
“Chain of Custody'' as PO2 Tibuc’s proof of personally transmitting the seized items from the police station to the forensic
laboratory only states transmittal of 12 plastic sachets bearing markings that could not be identified to have any relation to
the instant case. Ruiz is charged with the illegal sale of 1 plastic sachet of shabu and illegal possession of 14 plastic
sachets of shabu or a total of 15 plastic sachets. The markings according to the said document was “RYR-BB, RYR-P1 to
RYR-P11,” while PO2 Tibuc testified that his markings were “APT-BB'' and “APT to APT-14.” The Court was unable to
determine on record who is “RYR.” The initials cannot be identified with any one of the police officers from the buy-bust
operation, the forensic chemist, or the accused herself.
The dangerous drugs is the corpus delicti of the offenses charged against Ruiz, and the fact of its existence is vital to a
judgment of conviction. In this case, the transmittal of the dangerous drugs, confiscated from Ruiz, from the police
officers to the forensic chemist was not proven. Corollary, there is a failure to prove the corpus delicti.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. Ruiz is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against her.
12. People v. Abdullah | Sec. 21 | G.R. No. 243941 | March 11, 2020 | Ivy
plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES | Defendants-appellants: SAMIAH S. ABDULAH

Wt of drugs: 0.25 gram shabu Location: Marikina City Date of Incident: November 20, 2014
Poseur-buyer: PO3 Joel Temporal
Information: illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5)

- Persons charged: EB, a child in conflict with the law (17 yo minor acting with discernment) and Samiah Abdulah
(mutually helped each other and sold 1 sachet (0.25 gram) of shabu to PO3 Temporal in a buy bust operation)
RTC:
❖ Both guilty of illegal sale of of dangerous drugs
❖ EB - privileged mitigating circumstance of MINORITY
CA: affirmed RTC
SC: reversed and set aside CA decision; Abdullah - ACQUITTED (Section 21 not complied with)
Mode: Notice of Appeal | JEMAA:
Doctrine:
❖ Deviations from the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act's chain of custody requirements are permitted only on
the strictest and most exceptional grounds. It is the burden of law enforcers to declare and demonstrate not only
the specific reasons impelling them to deviate from the law, but also the concrete steps they took to ensure the
integrity and evidentiary value of items allegedly seized.
❖ In the case at bar, the fact that the target area was a notorious Muslim community would not justify
non-compliance with Section 21. This invocation is only a bigoted view that only stirs conflict among Filipinos of
different religious affiliations
FACTS:
The prosecution averred that at around 1:30 p.m. on November 20, 2014, a confidential informant went to the District
Anti-Illegal Drug of the Eastern Police District in Pasig City, reporting that two (2) girls were selling illegal drugs on
Singkamas Street in Tumana, Marikina City. Superintendent Ogbac at once instructed PO3 Temporal and the informant
to verify the tip.
PDFelement
At the area, the informant introduced PO3 Temporal to "Erika" and "Lalay" — later identified as EB and Abdulah — as a
potential buyer of shabu. However, PO3 Temporal was advised to just return the following day, as they had no shabu at
that time.
PO3 Temporal reported the incident, and Superintendent Ogbac formed a buy-bust team accordingly. The team was
composed of him, Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Garcia, SPO1 Villanueva, PO3 Serpino, PO3 Temporal, PO2 Gayatao,
and Police Inspector Javier. PO3 Temporal was designated as the poseur-buyer, PO2 Gayatao as his back-up, and the
others as the support group. PO3 Temporal was given a P500.00 bill to be used as buy-bust money, which he marked with
his initials, "EJT."
On November 21, 2014, the buy-bust team went to the target area where they saw EB and Abdulah. At first, the girls
hesitated approaching PO3 Temporal as he was with PO2 Gayatao, so PO3 Temporal advised the other to distance
himself. Abdulah then approached PO3 Temporal and inquired about his order. The officer handed her the marked
P500.00 bill, which she then passed to EB. In turn, EB placed the money in a sling bag and retrieved from it a small
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, which she handed to the officer. At this, PO3 Temporal immediately
introduced himself as a police officer and apprehended Abdulah and EB. PO2 Gayatao proceeded to frisk the girls while
PO3 Temporal seized the sling bag from EB, recovering the buy-bust money and another sachet of white crystalline
substance.
Believing that the area was unsafe for being "a Muslim area," the team brought Abdulah and EB to the barangay hall
where they marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized items. The proceeding was witnessed by Barangay Tanod
Reynaldo Garcia, Barangay Kagawad Francisco delos Santos, Abdulah, and EB.
The team then proceeded to the Eastern Police District headquarters. There, SPO1 Garcia prepared the Request for
Laboratory Examination while PO3 Temporal prepared the Chain of Custody Form. PO3 Temporal later brought the
request and the seized items to the Crime Laboratory and passed them to PO3 Altarejos, who then gave the items to
Chief Inspector dela Cruz-Alviar for examination. The test results revealed that the confiscated items tested positive for
shabu.
❖ Abdullah denied selling drugs, insisting that she was merely sleeping in her house during the incident. She further
testified that EB is her nephew's wife.
❖ Abdullah argues before the CA that the RTC erred when it rendered conviction despite the apprehending
officers' failure to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. She noted that the inventory and
photographs were taken only at the barangay hall, without the presence of representatives from the media and
the National Prosecution Service.
RTC Ruling: both guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
CA Ruling: affirmed RTC
Hence, Abdullah filed a Notice of Appeal
ISSUE: whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellant Samiah S. Abdulah for
the illegal sale of dangerous drugs
HELD: NO. Section 21 was not complied with.
Non-compliance of Section 21 - Summary
1. Marking must be done shortly after the arrest. The marking of the seized drugs was not done immediately after
accused-appellant's arrest. It was done at the baranggay hall simply because the police officers said the target
area was a Muslim area.
2. Manner by which the allegedly seized drugs were handled after their confiscation, and while in transit to the
barangay hall, remains unaccounted for.
PDFelement
3. Absence of representatives from the media and the National Prosecution Service during the physical inventory
and photographing of the seized items. Prosecution gave no excuse for such absence
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: "(1) proof
that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence."
Corpus Delicti in Dangerous Drugs Cases (People v Nacua)
Sale or possession of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited
drug. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the
fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
Chain of Custody
Strict observance of the chain of custody requirements ensures the seized items' integrity. When the integrity of the seized
items cannot be trusted — as when there are procedural lapses in the chain of custody — the prosecution has failed to
establish the corpus delicti. Nonetheless, in situations that render strict compliance impossible or impracticable, deviations
from Section 21's requirements do not invalidate the seizure of illegal items. Noncompliance may be excused when "(a)
there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved." The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the items presented are authentic without any
indication of tampering.
“The prosecution has a two-fold duty of identifying any lapse in procedure and proving the existence of a sufficient reason
why it was not strictly followed.” (People v. Namil)
The first in the chain of custody's interconnected links is the marking stage, in which the arresting officer or poseur-buyer
affixes "initials or other identifying signs on the seized items . . . in the presence of the accused shortly after arrest." This
crucial step "serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence[.]
1. Marking was not done immediately after the arrest
IN THE CASE AT BAR, the marking of the seized drugs was not done immediately after accused-appellant's arrest. In his
own words, PO3 Temporal revealed that the team decided to mark and inventory the items at the barangay hall after
deeming the target area to be unsafe, it being "a Muslim area"
The prosecution's attempt to justify the delay in marking and inventorying the items is too weak a reason to validate the
police officers' noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements. The fact that the target area was a notorious
Muslim community would not justify noncompliancce of Section 21. This invocation is only a bigoted view that only stirs
conflict among Filipinos of different religious affiliations. Islamophobia, the hatred against the Islamic community, can
never be a valid reason to justify an officer's failure to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
2. Manner by which the allegedly seized drugs were handled after their confiscation, and while in transit to
the barangay hall, remains unaccounted for. Prosecution gave no justification for dispensing with the
requirements of Section 21. (seized items were at the pocket of PO1 Bobon while they were in transit)
Police officers’ plain claims of having close, personal custody of allegedly seized items in transit is “a doubtful and
suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items.”
In the case at bar, according to the prosecution the seized items remained in the pockets of PO1 Bobon.
Even without referring to the strict requirements of Section 21, common sense dictates that a single police officer's act of
bodily- keeping the item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, is fraught with dangers. One need not engage in a meticulous counter-checking with the requirements of Section 21
to view with distrust the items coming out of PO1 Bobon's pockets. That the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals
both failed to see through this and fell — hook, line, and sinker — for PO1 Bobon's avowals is mind-boggling.
PDFelement
3. Absence of representatives from the media and the National Prosecution Service during the physical
inventory and photographing of the seized items. Prosecution gave no excuse for such absence
The prosecution did not even show that the police officers exerted any effort to call in these representatives. The officers
had sufficient time to secure their presence, since a surveillance operation had been conducted prior to the buy-bust
operation.
FINAL NOTE FROM THE COURT
Finally, this Court emphasizes that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the
prosecution cannot merely rely on the oft-cited presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty to justify
noncompliance with the law's mandate. The presumption of innocence enjoyed by the accused stands so long as
there is reasonable doubt on their culpability. To overcome the presumption of innocence, the prosecution must prove
the accused's criminal liability beyond reasonable doubt; it cannot be overcome by merely relying on the weakness of the
defense.
HENCE, the ruling of the CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Samiah S. Abdulah is ACQUITTED for
the prosecution's failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from
detention unless she is confined for some other lawful cause.
13. Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo | Sec. 23 | G.R. No. 226679 | August 15, 2017 | Jolo
plaintiff-appellee: SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. | defendants-appellants: HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO

Wt of drugs: Methamphetamine Hydrocloride Location: Legazpi Date of Incident: March 21, 2016
Information: Violation of Section 11, Art. II of RA 9165

RTC: Did not rule upon the constitutionality of Sec. 23 of RA 9165
SC: Declared Sec. 23 of RA 9165 unconstitutional
Mode: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition | JEMAA: none
FACTS: Petitioner Salvador A. Estipona, Jr. is the accused in Criminal Case No. 13586 for violation of Section 11, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs). The Information alleged that on or about the 21st day of March,
2016, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any regulated drug and without the corresponding license or
prescription, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have, in his possession and under his control and
custody, one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as VOP 03/21/16-1G containing 0.084 [gram] of
white crystalline substance, which when examined were found to be positive for Methamphetamine Hydrocloride (Shabu),
a dangerous drug.
Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty
plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a
first-time offender and the minimal quantity of the dangerous drug seized in his possession. He argued that Section 23 of
R.A. No. 9165 violates: (1) the intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof; (2) the rulemaking authority
of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; and (3) the principle of separation of
powers among the three equal branches of the government.
The prosecution moved for the denial of the motion for being contrary to Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which is said to be
justified by the Congress' prerogative to choose which offense it would allow plea bargaining. Later, in a Comment or
Opposition dated June 29, 2016, it manifested that it "is open to the Motion of the accused to enter into plea bargaining to
give life to the intent of the law as provided in paragraph 3, Section 2 of R.A. No. 9165, however, with the express
PDFelement
mandate of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 prohibiting plea bargaining, it is left without any choice but to reject the proposal
of the accused.
Judge Frank E. Lobrigo of the Regional Trial Court Legazpi City, Albay, denied Estipona’s motion.
Defender’s Contention:
The accused posited in his motion that Sec. 23 of RA No. 9165, which prohibits plea bargaining, encroaches on the
exclusive constitutional power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure because plea bargaining is a "rule
of procedure." Indeed, plea bargaining forms part of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly under Rule 118, the rule
on pre-trial conference. It is only the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional
rule-making power that breathes life to plea bargaining. It cannot be found in any statute.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec. 23 of RA No. 9065 is unconstitutional
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now Their
exclusive domain and no longer shared with the Executive and Legislative departments. The rule making power of this
Court was expanded. This Court for the first time was given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights. The Court was also granted for the first time the power to disapprove rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But most importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of
Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to
promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by this Court with Congress, more so with the
Executive.
While the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various courts is, by constitutional design,
vested unto Congress, the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts belongs exclusively to this Court.
In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice the Court traced the evolution of its rule-making authority, which, under the 1935 and
1973 Constitutions, had been priorly subjected to a power-sharing scheme with Congress. As it now stands, the 1987
Constitution textually altered the old provisions by deleting the concurrent power of Congress to amend the rules, thus
solidifying in one body the Court's rule-making powers, in line with the Framers' vision of institutionalizing a stronger and
more independent judiciary. Thus, as it now stands, Congress has no authority to repeal, alter, or supplement rules
concerning pleading, practice, and procedure.
The separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of our government has erected an impregnable wall that
keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of this Court. The other
branches trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the
procedural rules promulgated by the Court. Viewed from this perspective, the Court has rejected previous attempts on the
part of the Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power, to amend the Rules of Court.
PDFelement
14. Pascua v. People | Sec. 24 | G.R. No. 250578 | September 7, 2020 | Vee
petitioner: BERT PASCUA Y VALDEZ | Respondent: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Wt of drugs: 0.024g (selling); 0.054g (possession) shabu Location: Bataan Date of Incident:
Information: 2 Informations: violation of Sec. 5 (selling 0.024g) and Sec. 11 (possession of 0.054g), Article II of RA 9165
RTC: allowed the plea of guilty (for both criminal cases) to a lesser offense of violation of Sec. 12, Article II of RA 9165 but
ordered Pascua not eligible for probation under the case for selling
CA: affirmed
SC: partially granted. the sentence “Make it of record that the accused is ineligible to apply for probation” is deleted
Mode: petition for review on certiorari | JEMAA: n/a
FACTS: The instant case stemmed from 2 Informations filed before the RTC charging Pascua with violations of Sections 5
(Criminal Case No. 18805), and 11 (Criminal Case No. 18806), for selling 0.024 gram and possession of 0.054 gram of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Upon arraignment, Pascua pleaded “not guilty” to the crimes charged.
However, he later filed a Motion to Allow Accused to Enter into Plea Bargaining Agreement wherein he offered to enter a
plea of “guilty” to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 for both criminal cases.
RTC: Issued separate orders allowing Pascua to enter a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12,
Article II of RA 9165 in both criminal cases. However, in the case for selling, it was expressly stated in the dispositive
portion of the Order that Pascua was “ineligible to apply for probation.”
Pascua Motion for Reconsideration: Pascua argued that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC only prohibits probation if the accused
is actually found guilty of sale of illegal drugs (Sec. 5), and not when he is found guilty to the lesser offense of “possession
of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs” (Sec. 12)
RTC denied the MR: In denying the MR, the RTC held that probation is not a matter of right but a special privilege which
is discretionary upon the court. It held that the framers of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC clearly intended that persons charged
with sale of illegal drugs would not be qualified for probation if they chose to plead guilty to a lesser offense.
CA affirmed the RTC ruling: The CA held that the reasonable interpretation of A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC would lead to the
conclusion that the SC intended for drug trafficking and pushing (Sec. 5) to still be covered by the “no probation rule”
under Sec. 24, Article II of RA 9165.
It rejected Pascua’s contention because to do so would result in absurdity, since Section 5 is not among the enumerated
lesser offenses to which an accused can admit guilt in lieu of being convicted of a higher offense. That if this was the
intention of the SC, it would have included this provision since there is no applicable plea to which this exception to the
general rule would be applicable. That to follow petitioner’s contention would mean that persons accused with sale
of illegal drugs would simply have to plead guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, apply for
probation, then be released scot-free. Lastly, the CA held that even assuming Pascua was eligible for probation, the
same is still within the discretion of the lower court.
ISSUE: WON the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding that Pascua is
ineligible for probation after pleading guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12 instead of Section 5
HELD: NO.
The Court finds that the CA erred in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in declaring Pascua
ineligible for probation after pleading guilty to the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165.
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC Adoption of the Plea Bargaining Framework in Drugs Cases
Plea bargaining in cases involving drugs cases was recently allowed through the Court’s promulgation of
Estipona, Jr. v. Lobrigo, which declared the provision in RA 9165 expressly disallowing plea bargaining in drugs cases,
i.e., Section 23, Article II, unconstitutional for contravening the rule-making authority of the SC. Following this
PDFelement
pronouncement, the Court issued A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC providing for a plea-bargaining framework in drugs cases, which
was required to be adopted by all trial courts handling drugs cases.
In A.M. No. 18-03-16, the Court enumerated several violations of RA 9165 which could be subject to plea-bargaining.
Included therein is violation of Section 5, Article II, particularly for the sale, trading, etc. of shabu weighing less than 1.00
grams. The rationale for this lies in the diminutive quantity of the dangerous drugs involved. The Court is of the view that
illegal sale of 0.01 gram to 0.99 gram of shabu is very light enough to be considered as necessarily included in the
offense of violation of Section 12, while 1.00 gram and above is substantial enough to disallow plea bargaining. The
Court holds the same view with respect to the illegal sale of 0.01 gram to 9.99 grams of marijuana, which likewise
suffices to be deemed necessarily included in the same offense of violation of the same Section 12 of RA 9165, while
10.00 grams and above is ample enough to disallow plea bargaining.
A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC also provides, among others, in the "Remarks" column of the aforesaid offense that "if accused
applies for probation in offenses punishable under R.A. No. 9165, other than for illegal drug trafficking or pushing under
Section 5 in relation to [Section] 24 thereof, then the law on probation apply."
CA MISCONSTRUED REMARKS UNDER A.M. NO. 18-03-16-SC
The CA construed the aforementioned remark in A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC as disqualifying persons originally charged with
violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 but were convicted of the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of
the same law - such as Pascua - for applying for probation.
However, the CA is mistaken as the said remark should simply be regarded as a recognition and reminder of the general
rule provided in Section 24 that any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing shall be ineligible for probation.
Moreover, the CA's view is not supported neither by the very wording of Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 nor the
provisions of the Probation Law. It likewise disregards the legal consequences of plea bargaining.
Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 and Probation Law = what is essential is not the offense charged but the offense
to which the accused is ultimately found guilty of
Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 provides that any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under Section 5 of the
law cannot avail of the benefits of the Probation Law. On the other hand, Probation is defined under Section 3(a) thereof
as “a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released subject to conditions imposed by
the court and to the supervision of a probation officer.”
It is clear from both Section 24, Article II of RA 9165 and the provisions of the Probation Law that in applying for probation,
what is essential is not the offense charged but the offense to which the accused is ultimately found guilty of.
ACCEPTANCE OF A PLEA BARGAIN
Upon acceptance of a plea bargain, the accused is actually found guilty of the lesser offense subject of the plea.
Thus, regardless of what the original charge was in the Information, the judgment would be for the lesser offense
to which the accused pled guilty. This means that the penalty to be meted out, as well as all the attendant
accessory penalties, and other consequences under the law, including eligibility for probation and parole, would
be based on such lesser offense.
Necessarily, even if Pascua was originally charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No.
18805, he was ultimately convicted of the lower offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of the same law. Since the
foregoing effectively removed Pascua's case from the coverage of Section 24, Article II of RA 9165, he should, at the very
least, be allowed to apply for probation.
Not necessarily make Pascua eligible for probation
PDFelement
The ruling is limited to the deletion of the RTC’s pronouncement that Pascua is “ineligible to apply for probation,” thereby
allowing him to file such application. If he files for the same, the grant or denial thereof will then lie in the sound discretion
of the RTC after due consideration of the criteria laid down in the Probation Law.
WHEREFORE, the petition is partly GRANTED. The CA Resolution is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Order of
the RTC of Balanga City, Bataan is MODIFIED, in that the sentence: “Make it of record that the accused is
ineligible to apply for probation,” is DELETED.
15. People v. Morilla | Sec. 26 | G.R. No. 189833 | February 5, 2014 | Jammy
plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines | defendants-appellants: Javier Morlla

Wt of drugs: 503.68 kilos shabu Location: Real, Quezon Date of Incident: October 13, 2001
Information: Morilla, Mayor Mitra, Willing Yang and Ruel Dequilla in conspiracy; Transport of illegal drugs
RTC: Convicted Morilla Mayor Mitra illegal transport of shabu. Absolved Dequilla and Yang due to prosecution’s failure to
present sufficient evidence to convict them
CA: Affirmed RTC
SC: Affirmed but modified the penalty
FACTS: Two vehicles left Infanta, Quezon en route to Manila. The Starex van was driven by then incumbent Mayor Mitra
of Panukalan, Quezon Province while the Ambulance van was driven by Morilla. Willie Yang and Ruel Dequilla were
passengers of the ambulance van.
The Starex van which was ahead of the ambulance was able to pass the checkpoint set up by the police officers in Real,
Quezon. However, the ambulance driven by Morilla was stopped by police officers. Through the untinted window, one of
the police officers noticed several sacks inside the van. Upon inquiry of the contents, Morilla replied that the sacks
contained narra wooden tiles. Unconvinced, the police officers requested Morilla to open the rear door of the car for
further inspection. When it was opened, the operatives noticed that white crystalline granules were scattered on the floor,
prompting them to request Morilla to open the sacks. At this moment, Morilla told the police officers that he was with
Mayor Mitra in an attempt to persuade them to let him pass. His request was rejected by the police officers and upon
inspection, the contents of the sacks turned out to be sacks of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
This discovery prompted the operatives to chase the Starex van of Mayor Mitra. The police officers were able to overtake
the van and Mayor Mitra was asked to stop. They then inquired if the mayor knew Morilla. On plain view, the operatives
noticed that his van was also loaded with sacks like the ones found in the ambulance. Thus, Mayor Mitra was also
requested to open the door of the vehicle for inspection. At this instance, Mayor Mitra offered to settle the matter but the
same was rejected. Upon examination, the contents of the sacks were likewise found to contain sacks of
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
An Information was thereafter filed against Morilla, Mayor Mitra, Willie Yang and Ruel Dequilla for illegal transport of
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) with an approximate weight of 503.68 kilos.
RTC: convicted Morilla and Mayor Mitra while absolving Yang and Dequilla for the prosecutions’ failure to prove
their guilt beyond reasonable doubt
The trial court found valid the search conducted by police officers on the vehicles driven by Mayor Mitra and Morilla as the
police officers have already acquired prior knowledge that the said vehicles were suspected to be used for transportation
of dangerous drugs. During the checkpoint in Real, Quezon, the information turned out to be accurate and indeed, the two
accused had in their motor vehicles more than five hundred kilos of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The ruling of conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and Morilla was based on the testimonies of the four accused themselves.
However, the two other accused in this case, Dequilla and Yang, were acquitted by the trial court for failure on the part of
PDFelement
the prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court ruled that Dequilla’s and Yang’s mere
presence inside the vehicle as passengers was inadequate to prove that they were also conspirators of Mayor Mitra and
Morilla.
The Court of Appeals Decision. Affirmed
The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court. It upheld the finding of conspiracy between Mayor Mitra and
Morilla in their common intent to transport several sacks containing methamphetamine hydrochloride onboard their
respective vehicles. The singularity of their intent to illegally transport shabu was readily shown when Morilla agreed to
drive the ambulance van from Infanta, Quezon to Manila together with Mayor Mitra, who drove the lead vehicle, the Starex
van.
The appellate court likewise dismissed the argument of lack of knowledge of the illegal contents of the sacks. The claim
that the sacks were loaded with wooden tiles was implausible due to the obvious disparity of texture and volume.
Mayor Mitra contends that he was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks and that he was merely requested
to transport them to Manila on board his Starex van. He explained that he only accommodated the request of a certain
Ben Tan because the latter bought his fishing boat. Ambulance driver Morilla also contends lack of knowledge of the
illegality of the contents. Morilla insisted that he thought that he was just transporting wooden tiles and electronic spare
parts together with Dequilla. The other passenger of the ambulance, Yang, in his defense, did not bother to inquire about
the contents of the vehicle as he was merely an accommodated passenger of the ambulance.
In his supplemental brief, Morilla raised the issues: (1) whether he may be convicted for conspiracy to commit the offense
charged sans allegation of conspiracy in the Information, and (2) whether the prosecution was able to prove his culpability
as alleged in the Information.
Morilla primarily cites the provision on Sec. 1(b), Rule 115 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure to substantiate his
argument that he should have been informed first of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. He pointed out
that the Information itself failed to state the word conspiracy but instead, the statement “the above–named accused, one
of them an incumbent mayor of the Municipality of Panukulan, Quezon Province, who all belong to an
organized/syndicated crime group as they all help one another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
transport x x x.” He argued that conspiracy was only inferred from the words used in the Information.
ISSUE: Whether or not Javier Morilla is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
HELD: YES.
The issue of defect in the information, at this point, is deemed to have been waived due to Morilla’s failure to assert it as a
ground in a motion to quash before entering his plea.
Further, it must be noted that accused Morilla participated and presented his defenses to contradict the allegation of
conspiracy before the trial and appellate courts. His failure or neglect to assert a right within a reasonable time warrants a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it.
The finding of conspiracy by both courts is correct.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony.
PDFelement
Morilla argues that the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was apprehended is not sufficient to prove that
he was part of a syndicated group involved in the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.
This argument is misplaced.
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter into and
pursue a common design. The assent of the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof
of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of some complete whole. In this case, the
totality of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to
transport the dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of dangerous drugs, were on convoy from
Quezon to Manila. Mayor Mitra was able to drive through the checkpoint set up by the police operatives. When it was
Morilla’s turn to pass through the checkpoint, he was requested to open the rear door for a routinary check. Noticing white
granules scattered on the floor, the police officers requested Morilla to open the sacks. If indeed he was not involved in
conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not have told the police officers that he was with the mayor.
His insistence that he was without any knowledge of the contents of the sacks and he just obeyed the instruction of his
immediate superior Mayor Mitra in driving the said vehicle likewise bears no merit.
Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the dangerous drugs on board
their vehicles. “Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act means “to carry or convey from one place to another.”
It was well established during trial that Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was
driving a Starex van going to Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum
since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs
need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.
However, we modify the penalty imposed by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Originally, under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, the penalty for illegal transportation of methamphetamine
hydrochloride was imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from six thousand
to twelve thousand pesos. Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1683, the penalty was amended to life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from twenty to thirty thousand pesos. The penalty was further amended in Republic Act No.
7659, where the penalty was changed to reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand
pesos to ten million pesos.
From the foregoing, we sustain the imposed penalty of fine of P10,000,00.00 to be paid by each of the accused but
amend the penalty to reclusion perpetua following the provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 and the principle of retroactive
application of lighter penalty. Reclusion perpetua entails imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict
becomes eligible for pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely: perpetual special disqualification, etc. Life
imprisonment, on the other hand, does not appear to have any definite extent or duration and carries no accessory
penalties.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the CA is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION with respect to
the penalty to be imposed as Reclusion Perpetua instead of Life Imprisonment and payment of fine P10M by each
of the accused.
PDFelement
16. People v. Laylo | Sec. 26 | G.R. No. 192235 | July 6, 2011 | Kate
plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES | defendants-appellants: ROLANDO LAYLO Y CEPRES

Wt of drugs: 0.04 gram - Laylo; 0.02 gram - Ritwal Location: Binangonan, Rizal Date of Incident: 12-17-2005
Poseur-buyer: Police Officer 1 (PO1) Angelito G. Reyes (PO1 Reyes) and PO1 Gem A. Pastor (PO1 Pastor)
Information: Attempted Sale of Illegal Drugs - Laylo; Possession of Illegal Drugs - Ritwal
RTC: Found Laylo and Ritwal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of RA 9165
Rolando Laylo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 26(b) of R.A. No. 9165
Ritwal GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165
CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC
SC: Affirmed
FACTS: Prosecution Version
PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, both wearing civilian clothes, were conducting anti-drug surveillance operations at Lozana
Street, Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal. While the police officers were in front of a sari-sari store at around 5:40 p.m.,
appellant Laylo and his live-in partner, Ritwal, approached them and asked, "Gusto mong umiskor ng shabu?" PO1 Reyes
replied, "Bakit mayroon ka ba?" Laylo then brought out two plastic bags containing shabu and told the police officers, "Dos
(₱200.00) ang isa." Upon hearing this, the police officers introduced themselves as cops. PO1 Reyes immediately
arrested Laylo. Ritwal, on the other, tried to get away but PO1 Pastor caught up with her. PO1 Pastor then frisked Ritwal
and found another sachet of shabu in a SIM card case which Ritwal was carrying.
PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor marked the three plastic sachets of shabu recovered from Laylo and Ritwal and forwarded
them to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for forensic testing. Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Yehla C.
Manaog conducted the laboratory examination on the specimens submitted and found the recovered items positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
Defense Version: Laylo testified that while he and his common-law wife, Ritwal, were walking on the street, two men
grabbed them. The two men, who they later identified as PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, dragged them to their house. Once
inside, the police officers placed two plastic sachets in each of their pockets. Afterwards, they were brought to the police
station where, despite protests and claims that the drugs were planted on them, they were arrested and charged.
RTC: Laylo and Ritwal guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of RA 9165. The RTC gave credence to the
testimonies of the police officers, who were presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. RTC stated that
Reyes and Pastor were straightforward and candid in their testimonies and unshaken by cross-examination. Their
testimonies were unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in their material points. The RTC added that the denial of
appellant Laylo is weak and self-serving and his allegation of planting evidence or frame-up can be easily conceded.
Thus, Laylo’s defense cannot be given credence over the positive and clear testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Contention to SC: Appellant claims that he was a victim of a frame up. He asserts that is is unbelievable that he would
be so foolish and reckless to offer to sell shabu to strangers.
ISSUE: Whether or not defendant is guilty of violation of Section 26(b), Article II (Attempted Sale of Dangerous Drugs) of
Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
HELD: YES. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
In the present case, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor testified that they were the poseur-buyers in the sale. Both positively
identified appellant as the seller of the substance contained in plastic sachets which were found to be positive for shabu.
The same plastic sachets were likewise identified by the prosecution witnesses when presented in court. Even the
PDFelement
consideration of ₱200.00 for each sachet had been made known by appellant to the police officers. However, the sale was
interrupted when the police officers introduced themselves as cops and immediately arrested appellant and his live-in
partner Ritwal. Thus, the sale was not consummated but merely attempted. Thus, appellant was charged with attempted
sale of dangerous drugs.
Here, appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission of the intended crime by showing
the substance to PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor. The sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves and
placed appellant and Ritwal under arrest. From the testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution was able to establish
that there was an attempt to sell shabu. In addition, the plastic sachets were presented in court as evidence of corpus
delicti. Thus, the elements of the crime charged were sufficiently established by evidence.
Appellant claims that he was a victim of a frame up. However, he failed to substantiate his claim. The witnesses presented
by the defense were not able to positively affirm that illegal drugs were planted on appellant by the police officers when
they testified that "they saw someone place something inside appellant’s jacket." In Quinicot v. People, we held that
allegations of frame-up and extortion by police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs
cases.
Appellant asserts that it is unbelievable that he would be so foolish and reckless to offer to sell shabu to strangers. In
People v. de Guzman, we have ruled that peddlers of illicit drugs have been known, with ever increasing casualness and
recklessness, to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not. What matters is not the
existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well
as the act constituting the sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. SC AFFIRMED the CA Decision.

Title 5 Crimes Relative To Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs - Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 5 Crimes Relative To Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs - Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remove Watermark Wondershare

TITLE 5 CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER

4. People v. Sapla | Sec. 5 | G.R. No. 244045 | June 16, 2020 | JL 10

8. People v. Sullano | Sec. 15 | G.R. No. 228373 | March 12, 2018 | JL 19

petitioner: SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA

HELD: The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction.

SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of

Conspiracy was alleged in the Information

Illegal Sale vs Illegal Trading

plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines | defendants-appellants: Camaloding Laba

Mode: Certiorari | JEMAA:

Ruling of the RTC

ISSUE: Whether or not Laba is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

Appellant was convicted of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165, which reads:

Ruling as regards the Chain of Custody

plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Mode: Notice of Appeal | JEMAA:

FACTS: Prosecution Version

Prosec. Garcia LECTURE:

4. People v. Sapla | Sec. 5 | G.R. No. 244045 | June 16, 2020 | JL

plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines

Information: Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165|||

Mode: Notice of Appeal | JEMAA: N/A

HELD: (1) NO.

Search of a Moving Vehicle and its Non-Applicability in the Instant Case

plaintiff-appellee: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES | defendants-appellants: ALLAN QUIJANO Y SANDING

Mode: Appeal | JEMAA: none

Defense before RTC:

ISSUE: WON appellant is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs?

Appellant failed to prove the absence of animus possidendi

As to the issue of chain of custody

plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES | Defendants-appellants: DAVID JAMES PIS-AN y DIPUTADO

Information: Possession of Dangerous Drugs (Section 11)

CA: affirmed RTC

Mode: Ordinary Appeal | JEMAA:

CA Ruling: affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA observed:

ALL THE ELEMENTS WERE PRESENT

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE UNDER SECTION 21 WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH

In the case of Aranas y Dimaala v. People, the SC ruled that:

LIFE IMPRISONMENT SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED

plaintiff-appellee: JAIME D. DELA CRUZ | defendants-appellants: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Mode: Petition for Review on Certiorari | JEMAA: None

Version of the Prosecution:

Version of the Defense:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the CA is SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ACQUITTED.

8. People v. Sullano | Sec. 15 | G.R. No. 228373 | March 12, 2018 | JL

Petitioner: People of the Phlippines | Respondent: PO1 JOHNNY K. SULLANO

Mode: petition for review on certiorari | JEMAA: N/A

ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of violation Section 15, Article II of RA No 9165

HELD: NO. SC affirmed the RTC and CA’s decision.

Ruling in Dela Cruz v People is helpful in this case

Section 15 cannot be expanded to include respondent

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The CA Resolution is AFFIRMED.

plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines | defendants-appellants: Ronald Suating

Mode: petition for review on certiorari | JEMAA: n/a

RTC convicted Suating of the charges.

CA ruled against Suating.

ISSUE: Whether or not Suating is guilty beyond reasonable doubt

Failure to present poseur-buyer

Inconsistencies in the narration

Attendance of third-party witnesses

Section 21 and Non-conformity therewith