CASE DIGEST

CLB

GR NO. 216725 (People Vs. Rogelio Yagao Y Llaban)

Facts:

 The Appellant was convicted in 2011 by Regional Trial Court Branch 25 of Cagayan De Oro City
for violating Sec. 5, Art. II, of RA 9165. (Affirmed by the decision of the Court of appeals in 2014)
 According to the report, Yagao was caught with 7.40g of Marijuana after the buy bust operation
happened (Bugo, Cagayan De Oro City)
 According to the evidence presented by the prosecution, after the arresting officers herein
received a tip from their confidential informant that the appellant was involved in selling of
illegal drugs, they immediately established a buy bust operation. Hence, after the poseur buyer
handed the payment to the appellant in which he received willingly, the appellant released from
his pocket a sachet containing the dried leaves of marijuana. After such juncture, the arresting
officers immediately grab the appellant, state his constitutional rights, and turn over him to the
police station and charge him with violation of Sec. 5, Art. 2, of RA 9165.
 On contrary, according to the testimony of the appellant, in time of his arrest, He is in his house
and having a conversation with the cousin of his wife. After a while, a man approached him and
asked him to go to the road side. However, even before the appellant could even dress himself
up to come-along with the said man, he already saw several man rushing towards him and
forced him to ride a van.

Issue:

 Whether or not, the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sect. 5, Art.
2, of RA 9165.

Rulling:

 The prosecution did not establish the essential element of the delivery of the dangerous drug by
the accused-appellant to the poseur buyer. Based on the testimony of the seizing officer, after
seeing the appellant release the marijuana from his pocket, they immediately held him.
Therefore, without showing that the delivery of the dangerous drug took place, the State's
evidence would not amount to proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, for it was the delivery of
the drug by the accused-appellant, coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated
drug itself, or the corpus delicti, that would establish to a moral certainty the commission of the
violation.
 The chain of custody had been put in the pedestal of doubt. To begin with, irreconcilable
inconsistencies tainted the arresting and seizing officers' recollections about the links in the
chain of custody since the arresting officers did not marked the confiscated items at the place of
the arrest; instead, they immediately brought the accused-appellant and the confiscated drug to
the police station, justifying such move with the supposed growing hostility of the crowd that
had gathered at the crime scene. Secondly, the State presented no witness to testify on the
circumstances surrounding the marking of the confiscated drug, and on whether or not the
marking had been made in the presence of the accused-appellant. And, thirdly, PO2 Deloso
disclosed that no inventory or pictures had been taken during the arrest of the accused-
appellant and seizure of the dangerous drug,27 and in the aftermath.

o The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 (a), adopted to

implement Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, mirrors the procedural requirements, thus:
  a) The apprehending office/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 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

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on September

18, 2014 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00899-MIN; ACQUITS accused-
appellant ROGELIO YAGAO y LLABAN for failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the
violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002); and ORDERS his immediate release from detention unless he is legally confined for another
lawful cause.
 G.R. No. 242947 – Criminal Law – Special Penal Laws – Anti-Dangerous Drugs
Act – Section 21 – Presence of Mandatory Witnesses – Chain of Custody

In June 2013, Mario Manabat was subjected to a buy bust operation in

Dipolog City. After an alleged successful buy-bust, he was apprehended.
Aside from the packet of illegal drug that he allegedly sold, from his
person were also recovered nine packets of illegal drugs. Eventually, he
was convicted by the trial court for violations of Section 5 (selling illegal
drugs) and Section 11 (illegal possession) of R.A. No. 9165 or the Anti-
Dangerous Drugs Act.

Manabat argued that his conviction was not proper because the cases
against him were procedurally defective because of the fact that the
mandatory witnesses required by Section 21 of RA 9165 were not present
at the time of his apprehension. They were only present AFTER his
apprehension or during the inventory of the items seized from him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Mario Manabat must be acquitted.

HELD: Yes. The mandatory witnesses (DOJ/Media representative and an

elective official) must be present during the inventory which must be
IMMEDIATELY conducted after the apprehension of the suspect. It is for
this reason that during the apprehension, the three witnesses must
already be present. The three required witnesses should already be
physically present at the time of apprehension – a requirement that can
easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-
bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. (Sect. 21, RA 9165).

The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the
inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is
at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed,
as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would
belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug.

The Certificate of Inventory  itself reveals that the document was not signed by accused-
28

appellant Manabat or by his counsel or representative. Upon perusal of the records of the instant
case, the prosecution did not acknowledge such defect. Nor did the prosecution provide any
explanation whatsoever as to why accused-appellant Manabat was not able to sign the Certificate of
Inventory.

Concededly, Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 provides that "noncompliance of 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
and custody over said items." For this provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must first
(1) recognize any lapse on the part of the police officers and (2) be able to justify the same.   In this
29

case, the prosecution neither recognized, much less tried to justify, the police officers'
deviation from the procedure contained in Section 21, RA 9165.
G.R. No. 189655, April 13, 2011

Aowa Electronic vs DTI

Facts:

 DTI-NCr records shows that from 2001 – 2007, more than 200 complaints had been
documented against the AOW Electronics Philippines INC.

 The facts narrated in the consumer complaints consistently contain a common thread that a
target costumer is approached by Aowa’s representative usually in the mall and inform the
former that he/she has won a gift or a “give-away.” Aowa’s representatives then verbally
reveal that the said gift can only be claimed upon purchase of additional products. An initial
gift is also offered to target customer and upon acceptance, the customer is invited to Aowa’s
store or outlet. It is that point that the customer is informed that he/she is qualified for a raffle
draw or contest entitling him to additional gift. In the same manner, the additional gift can be
received only upon purchase of additional products. In the course of enticing the target
customer to purchase additional products, they are physically surrounded (a.k.a ganging up)
by Aowa’s representatives. The purchase of additional products is not disclosed during the
initial stage of the sales pitch. The revelation is done only when the customer is already
being surrounded by Aowa’s representatives.

 As a result, DTI-NCR filed a Formal Charge against Aowa before the DTI-NCR Adjudication
Officer for violation Articles 50 and 52 of the Consumer Act of the Philippines praying that a
cease and desist order be issued and administrative fines be imposed.

 4. Aowa also argued that like other companies, sales personnel employed enthusiasm and
overzealousness in sales talk to convince potential customers which cannot and should not
be considered as deceit.

ISSUE:

Whether the AOWA Electronic PH Inc. is guilty for violating Art. 50 and 52 or RA 7394.

HLED:

Yes

ART. 50. Prohibition Against Deceptive Sales Acts or Practices. — A deceptive act or practice by a
seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this Act whether it occurs
before, during or after the transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed deceptive whenever the
producer, manufacturer, supplier or seller, through concealment, false representation [or] fraudulent
manipulation, induces a consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction of any consumer product
or service.

(2) a consumer product or service is of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model when in
fact it is not;

ART. 52. Unfair or Unconscionable Sales Act or Practice. — An unfair or unconscionable sales act
or practice by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates this Chapter
whether it occurs before, during or after the consumer transaction. An act or practice shall be
deemed unfair or unconscionable whenever the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or
seller, by taking advantage of the consumer's physical or mental infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, lack
of time or the general conditions of the environment or surroundings, induces the consumer to enter
into a sales or lease transaction grossly inimical to the interests of the consumer or grossly one-
sided in favor of the producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller.

It cannot be gainsaid that the DTI acted on the basis of about 273 consumer complaints against
Aowa, averring a common and viral scheme in carrying out its business to the prejudice of
consumers. Complaints — filed by consumers residing not only within the NCR but also in the
provinces20 ¾ continued to be filed even after the formal charge and the issuance of the PMO. In
this regard, we quote with affirmation and accord respect to the factual findings of the CA.