G.R. No.

227398, March 22, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANASTACIO HEMENTIZA Y DELA CRUZ, Accused-

Appellant.

FACTS

On May 25, 2003, at around 1:15 o'clock in the morning, Palconit, together with other police officers,
conducted a buy-bust operation at Barangay Sta. Cruz, Antipolo City. After briefing and coordination
with the local police, the team was dispatched to the said Barangay. Upon arrival, the CI pointed to
their target person. Palconit approached accused- appellant and asked if he could buy shabu. After
receiving the marked money, accused-appellant handed to Palconit one (1) small heat-sealed plastic
sachet containing shabu. At that point Palconit gave the signal and thereafter the apprehending team
indentified themeselves and arrested the accused and subsequently, brought the accuse to the
PDEA's office. The seized items were turned over to the case investigator who prepared the
corresponding request for laboratory examination. Thereafter, Palconit brought the seized items to
the crime laboratory and yielded a positive result as shabu.

The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of violation of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Likewise the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE

Whethe or not, the accuse is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The prosecution failed to demonstrate substantial
compliance by the apprehending officers with as regards the rule on chain of custody.

To begin with, the records are bereft of any showing that an inventory of the seized items was made.
Neither does it appear on record that the apprehending team photographed the contraband in
accordance with law.
First Link: Marking of the Drugs Recovered from the Accused by the Apprehending Officer was not
establish. it was not immediately done at the place where the accused was arrested. It was not done
in the presence of the accused nor his representative.

Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by the Apprehending Officer to the Investigating Officer
was also wanting since the identity of the investigating officer was unknown. It is unlikely that Palconit
did not know the officer to whom he supposedly turned over the seized drugs.

Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating Officer of the Illegal Drugs to the Forensic Chemist. In this
case, it was uncertain who received the seized items when it was brought to the forensic laboratory.

Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal Drug Seized by the Forensic Chemist to the Court. The
records are bereft of any evidence as to how the illegal drugs were brought to court. Witness of the
prosecution merely testified that she made a report confirming that the substance contained in the
sachets brought to her was positive for shabu.

In fine, the Court holds that the totality of the evidence presented does not support a finding of guilt
with the certainty that criminal cases require. The procedural lapses committed by the apprehending
team show glaring gaps in the chain of custody, creating a reasonable doubt on whether the shabu
seized from accused-appellant was the same shabu that were brought to the crime laboratory for
chemical analysis, and eventually offered in court as evidence. Hence, the corpus delicti has not been
adequately proven.

Therefore, the appeal is GRANTED.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONIR JAAFAR
Y TAMBUYONG, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

An informant reported to Chief of Police, that a certain "Mana" was selling shabu at the port
area barangay located just beside the police station. On September 11, 2009, the buy-bust team left
the police station at 1:45 a.m. and went to Jaafar's house as it was identified that the accused
conducted his illegal sale during wee hours. Jaafar met PO1 Look and the informant at the door of his
house and asked them if they were buying shabu. Jaffar called Gani and the latter came out and
handed Jaafar a sachet containing shabu and gave it to PO1 Look in returned Jaafar received the
marked money. This time PO1 Look gave the signal to the arresting team and they tried to arrest
Jafaar; however the accused manage to escaped but subsequently the police caught him in not far
distant. Immediately after the arrest, PO1 Look marked the confiscated sachet of shabu with his
initials. He then turned over the sachet and the marked money to their team leader. The buy-bust
team brought Jaafar and Gani to the police station for investigation. Chief Larubis prepared a letter-
request addressed to forensic chemist for the examination of the contents of the sachet where the
contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The accused was charge in violation of
Article II sec.5 of RA 9165.

The Regional Trial Court found that the prosecution clearly established all the elements of
the crime of illegal sale of drugs. Although the chain of custody rule was not strictly complied with, it
applied the legal presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers. Hence
it convicted the accused-appellant but acquitted Gani for lack of evidence. The CA affired the findings
of the lower court.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the guilt of accused appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite the non-
observance of the required procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Court finds that the prosecution failed to show any
justifiable reason that would warrant non-compliance with the mandatory requirements in Section 21
of Republic Act No. 9165.

Although the buy-bust team marked and conducted a physical inventory of the seized sachet of
shabu, the records do not show that the seized sachet had been photographed. Furthermore, there is
absolutely no evidence to show that the physical inventory was done in the presence of accused-
appellant or his representative, representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and an
elected public official.

The buy-bust team had an entire day within which to coordinate with the persons required by law to
be present during the physical inventory of the seized drugs. They had ample time to contact an
elected public official and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice.

There was no reason for them to neglect such important requirements. They cannot feign ignorance
of the exacting standards under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Police officers are presumed and
are required to know the laws they are charged with executing.

Therefore, the appeal is GRANTED. The accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED.

G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PUYAT MACAPUNDAG Y LABAO, Accused-

Appellant.

FACTS

At around 8:00 to 8:30 in the morning of March 14, 2009, an informant tipped the Caloocan City
Police that a certain individual known as alias "Popoy" was selling shabu in Baltazar Street, Caloocan
City. Acting on the tip, Police Chief Inspector ordered the conduct of a buy-bust operation in
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), (PO3) George Ardedon designated
as poseur-buyer, and other police officers as back-up. The team proceeded to the target area where
they saw accused and transacted with him. Upon receivinf the marked money and the accused
handed over the said item, the poseur-buyer gave the signal and then the team proceeded to arrest
the accused. PO3 Ardedon marked the plastic sachet he purchased from Macapundag, while SPO1
Victoriano marked the other three (3) recovered from his pocket. Thereafter, they brought
Macapundag to the police station, where the seized items were turned over to PO2 the investigator
on duty. Later, PO2 Hipolito brought the items to the crime laboratory for physical examination.
Eventually, Forensic Chemical Officer examined the specimen, which tested positive for ephedrine, a
dangerous drug.

In June 13, 2013, the RTC found Macapundag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The
CA affirmed the trail court's decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not, Macapundag's conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
should be upheld.

RULING

The Suprem Court ruled in the negative.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure police
officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary
value.28 Under the said section, the apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom the items were seized, his representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs
must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for
examination

In this case, the prosecution was able to establish that PO3 Ardedon and SPO1 Victoriano
marked the seized items immediately at the place of arrest. However, the prosecution's witnesses
failed to state whether or not the police officers inventoried and photographed the seized sachets in
the presence of Macapundag or his representative. Likewise, they were silent as to the presence of
the other required witnesses.

The prosecution did not even bother to explain why the inventory and photograph of the
seized evidence were not made in the place of seizure and arrest. It was also silent on the absence of
a representative from the DOJ, the media and an elected public official to witness the inventory and
receive copies of the same. Similarly unexplained was the lack of inventory and photographs of the
seized items. Accordingly, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
compromised.

Therefore, the appeal is GRANTED.

G.R. No. 224143, June 28, 2017

KEVIN BELMONTE Y GOROMEO, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

At around 9 o'clock in the morning of November 23, 2010,(PDEA) Agent Sharon Ominga received
information from a confidential informant that a certain "Mac-Mac later identified as Gumba, was
selling marijuana. Ominga immediately coordinated with the PNP Provincial Anti-Illegal Drug and
conduct a buy-bust operation. Ominga was designated as the poseur-buyer, Cañero as arresting
officer, and the rest as back-up officer. The team proceeded to the public cemetery of San Gabriel, La
Union, the designated place for the transaction. Upon the buy-bust team's arrival at the target area,
Ominga, Cañero, and the agent walked towards the cemetery while the back-up officers waited in the
vehicle. As Gumba was taking long to arrive, Ominga's group decided to return to their vehicle. But as
they were walking, Gumba and two (2) male companions came into view. When the three ( men
reached Ominga's group, one of Gumba's companions, Belmonte, asked if they were the buyers. The
agent confirmed this, after which Gumba asked for the money from Cañero. Ominga, gave the marked
money Gumba's other companion, identified as Costales. Gumba then took a bundle of suspected
dried marijuana leaves from the black bag he was carrying and handed it to Ominga. Believing that it
was marijuana, Ominga declared that they were PDEA agents and arrested the accused but Costales
able to escaped.

Ominga's group waited for the local police and barangay officials to arrive before opening the black
bag. When such witnesses arrived Ominga opened the black bag which yielded four (4) more bricks of
dried marijuana wrapped in masking tape. Ominga then placed her initials signature, and the date of
confiscation on the outside of each bundle, including the bundle earlier sold to them. Ominga's group
then prepared an inventory, photographed the activity, and asked the PNP and barangay officials to
sign the inventory. Thereafter, Ominga's group returned to the PDEA office and prepared the request
for laboratory examination among other necessary documents. Ominga then delivered the seized
items to the PDEA crime laboratory foe examination.35 PDEA Chemist Valdez confirmed that the
seized bricks and bundle contained marijuana. Costales later on voluntarily surrendered.

The RTC found Belmonte, Gumba, and Costales guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5,
Article II, of RA 9165 for illegal sale of marijuana, which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE
Whether or not, the CA erred in convicting the accused-appellants for violation of sec. 5, article II of
RA 91 65.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in negative. Non-compliance with the requirements of the chain of custody
rule will not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, so long as: (a)
there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance; and (b) the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved.

In this case, the bricks and bundle of marijuana confiscated from the accused were immediately
marked, photographed, and inventoried upon the arrest of Belmonte and Gumba, and that the
markings were done by Ominga herself who placed her initials, signature, and the date of confiscation
thereat in the presence of Belmonte, Gumba, the back-up officers from the PDEA and the PNP, and
the Barangay Captain. After the inventory and photography at the arrest site, Ominga and her team
returned to the PDEA office where Ominga personally prepared the crime laboratory examination
request which she delivered to the PDEA chemist, Valdez, together with the bricks and bundle of
marijuana confiscated from the accused.

The absence of media representatives at the time Ominga prepared the inventory was sufficiently
explained by her during her cross-examination when she testified that when contacted, the media
representatives told them that they were still far from the area and would not be able to arrive on
time. As regards the absence of the DOJ representative, the DOJ clerk who signed the inventory,
explained that it has been the practice in their office for him to go to the PDEA office to sign the
inventories instead of going to the site of the crime. While this is not ideal and the Court by no means
condones it, the Court is also cognizant of the fact that this is not the fault of the apprehending
officers.

The foregoing sufficiently established the existence of a continuous chain of custody, which preserved
the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the items confiscated from the accused.

Therefore, the appeal is DENIED.

G.R. No. 224300, June 07, 2017

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE CUTARA Y BRIX, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On July 31, 2003, acting on an information on the alleged sale of shabu by accused-
appellant in Parola Compound, Tondo, Manila, Police Senior Inspector Raymund Liguden, Chief of the
Western Police District conducted a buy-bust operation. PO3 Solomon Marcial acted as poseur-buyer
using two pieces of PhP200 pesos bills as marked money. Upon arriving at the target area, the
Confidential Informant positively identified the accused-appellant and thereby PO3 Marcial approach
the former and asked if he could buy a shabu from him. The accused-appellant handed over a
transparent plastic sachet to the posuer-buyer and in turn the latter gave the marked money to the
accused. Thereafter, PO3 Marcial introduced himself as a police officer and arrested accused-
appellant. Immediately the team brought accused-appellant to the WPD office because the neighbors
came over and tried to stop the buy- bust team from arresting the accused-appellant.

At the WPD office, the seized items were marked by PO3 Marcial with the accused-
appellant's initials "JBC", and were turned over to the investigating officer, who prepared the joint
affidavit of arrest, booking sheet and arrest report, and request for laboratory examination.
Afterwards, the confiscated items, was brought to the crime laboratory by PO2 Geronimo for analysis.
The Chemistry Report then revealed that the seized sachet containing 0.254 gram tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

The RTC convicted the accused-appellant as charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in
its entirety.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the CA erred in affirming the Decision of the RTC convicting accused-appellant of the
crime of selling of shabu.
RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.

The prosecution duly established (1) the identity of the buyer - PO3 Marcial, the seller - accused-
appellant, the object of the sale one sachet of shabu which is an illegal drug, and the consideration -
the two pieces of marked two hundred peso bills; and

(2) PO3 Marcial positively identified accused-appellant as the one who transacted and sold the shabu
to him in exchange for the marked money. He caught accused-appellant in flagrante delicto selling the
shabu during a buy-bust operation.

The Court is convinced that the chain of custody was duly established. In his direct
examination, PO3 Marcial positively identified the seized sachet sold to him through the markings
"JBC" placed on the seized item. Since the buy-bust team struggled against the accused-appellant's
neighbors who were trying to prevent his arrest, PO3 Marcial was forced to mark the confiscated item
at the police station. Thereat, it was properly inventoried and documented.

Thereafter, a request for examination of the seized sachet of shabu was prepared. The
seized sachet of shabu was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory to determine the presence of illegal
drug. As per Chemistry Report made by the Forensic Chemist, the seized sachet of shabu tested
positive for the presence of a dangerous drug. When the prosecution presented the seized sachet of
shabu in court, PO3 Marcial positively identified it to be the same illegal drug seized from accused-
appellant. Further, the prosecution was able to present and identify the marked money in court.

Evidently, the records of the case showed that the prosecution successfully established the
links in the chain of custody over the seized sachet of shabu, from the time the poseur-buyer seized
the drugs, to the time it was brought to the PDEA office, then to the crime laboratory for testing, until
the time the same was offered in evidence before the court.

Therefore, the appeal is DENIED.

G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017

SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. Y ASUELA, Petitioner, v. HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

On June 15, 2016, 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 rule-making 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. At first the prosecution is against the said motion but later
on manifested that it is open to the motion of the accused. Respondent Judge Frank E. Lobrigo of
the Regional Trial Court Branch 3, Legazpi City, Albay, issued an Order denying Estipona's motion.
Estipona filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied; hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not, section 23 of the RA 9165 is unconstitutional as it encroached upon the power of
the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of procedure.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides:

(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the
same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme
Court.

Thus, as it 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 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.

Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea bargaining neither
create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means to implement an existing
right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law
and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them.

Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the pre-trial, or even up to the point when the
prosecution already rested its case.

Therefore, the petition is GRANTED. Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 is declared
unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule- making authority of the Supreme Court under
Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Definition:

Plea bargaining is "a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually
satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval."
G.R. No. 231989, September 04, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Around 8:00 p.m. on October 19, 2010, IO1 Orellan and his teammates were conducted a
buy-bust operation based on a report of a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Romy" has
been engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs. IOl Carin were assigned as the poseur-buyer and the
other as bak-up team. Upon arriving at the front of the house of the suspect, the CI knock on the
door and it was opend by accused Gorres. The buy-bust team made their intention to buy a shabu.
Lim who was at the sofa at that time instructed Gorres to get the box in his room and bring it to
him. Then he took one piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic of shabu and gave it to IO1 Carin. In
turn, in exchange fot the the buy-bust money. After that, Carin gave a miss call which is the signal
for the team to apprehend the suspects. The team then entered the house because the gate was
opened. Orellan declared that they were PDEA agents and informed Lim and Gorres, who of their
arrest for selling dangerous drug. Orellan ordered Lim to take out the items in his pocket which is
protruding in his pants, they recover the marked money anda sealed transparent sachet. . 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, they
"booked" the two accused and prepared the letters requesting for the laboratory examination on
the drug. 1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered both accused and the drug specimens to Regional Crime
Laboratory Office for examination. After examination by the chemist, accused Lim was found
positive with drug and the content of the plastic sachets were positive as shabu. 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. The CA affirmed the trial courts decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the chain of custody was strictly complied.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The judgment of conviction is reversed and set aside, and
Lim should be acquitted based on reasonable doubt.

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.

Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven.

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. IO2 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.

Stated in IO1 Orellan's 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.

Therefore, the apeeal is GRANTED. The accused is AQCUITTED.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 250578, September 07, 2020 BERT PASCUA Y VALDEZ, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The accused was charged for selling and possession of dangerous drugs which has a quantity
of less than 1 gram. However, he later filed a Motion to Allow him 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. The prosecution filed its Comment and Opposition
thereto, stressing that, per Department of Justice Department Circular No. 027-18, the State's
consent is necessary before the accused can plead to a lesser offense.

The RTC issued Order 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 Case However, it was expressly stated
that Pascua was "ineligible to apply for probation. Pascua moved for reconsideration and argued
that A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC only prohibits probation if the accused is actually found guilty of sale of
illegal drugs. The RTC denied his motion for reconsideration. On appeal, the CA afffrimed the ruling
of the trial court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the RTC did not gravely abuse its discretion in holding
that Pascua is ineligible for probation in after pleading guilty to the lesser offense of violation of
Section 12, Article II of RA 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative.

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.
In this regard, it is worth emphasizing that 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, 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.

However, 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.

Therefore, the petition is partly GRANTED.

G.R. No. 238873, September 16, 2020

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SUNDARAM MAGAYON Y FRANCISCO

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FACTS

On August 3, 2004, about 6 o' clock in the evening, PO2 Maderal and SPO4 Inocencio Amora
SPO4 Amora and several other police officers conducted a buy-bust operation on appellant
residence in Barangay 25, Jose P. Rizal, Butuan City. PO2 delos Santos accompanied the confidential
asset to the store which formed part of appellant's house. He (PO2 Maderal) stood near the store
where he could clearly see the asset and PO2 delos Santos. When he saw the asset exchange the
one hundred peso (P100.00) marked money with a teabag-sized packet of alleged marijuana from
appellant, he and his companions closed in and arrested appellant. The poliece officers recovered
the marked money from appellant's "wife" who received it from appellant right after the
transaction. Appellant and his wife arrested for illegally selling marijuana. The buy-bust team waited
for the barangay officials and media personnel to arrive before they commenced the search.
Appellant and his "wife," too, were present during the search. The search yielded a total of over 300
grams of marijua. The team conducted the inventory and had taken a photos of the same in the
presence of the accuse and the barangay officcials and the media. The witnesses signed the
inventory thereof. Thereafter, appellant, his "wife," and the seized items were brought to the police
station for booking and investigation. the items were submitted to the crime laboratory for
chemical examination and were found positive for marijuana.

The trial court rendered a verdict of conviction against appellant for illegal possession of
drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The Court of Appeals affirmed through its assailed
Decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not, the CA is correct in convicting accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. Appellant nonetheless contends that he could not be
guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in view of the prosecution's alleged failure to prove
that he owned or controlled the house and the store where the confiscated items were found.

The Court of Appeals correctly rejected this argument. For it was plainly stated in appellant's
own counter-affidavits that he resided in the address specified in the search warrant and where the
search was actually conducted. In his Counter-Affidavit, he stated that he and Cheche were live-in
partners. Although, on the witness stand, appellant subsequently disavowed certain portions of his
counter-affidavits, the recanted statements did not include appellant's address nor the fact that he
and Cheche were living together. Appellant is now estopped from claiming otherwise. He is bound
by the admissions in his sworn statements duly identified and marked in court.

An admission in open court is a judicial admission. In fine, appellant cannot disclaim his
control and dominion over the place subject of the search where subject drugs were found.

On the issue of chain of custody, the prosecution was establish the preservation of integrity and
evidenciary value of the seixed items.

Here, the testimonies of PO2 Maderal and the forensic chemist sufficiently established every
link in the chain of custody from the time the prohibited drugs were seized and inventoried right
after the search at the place of the search, to the time they were brought to the police station for
the booking, investigation, and forensic analysis, up until the prohibited drugs were presented in
court.

On the marking of the seized items, appellant himself admitted that the seized drugs were marked
and inventoried at the time and place of the search. Notably, appellant himself admitted in court
that the items subject of the inventory as photographed by the police officers were indeed
recovered from the place where the search and arrest were made.

In sum, appellant admitted the identity and integrity of the drugs seized from his residence and
those presented in court.

Therefore, the appeal is DENIED.

NOTE: 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. On the other hand, constructive possession 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.