G.R. No.

175928 August 31, 2007

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALVIN PRINGAS y
PANGANIBAN Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:
A buy-bust operation was conducted by the PNP against Panganiban. PO1 Joselito
Esmallaner acted as a poseur-buyer. PO1 Esmallaner and the informant proceeded to
the unnumbered house of appellant, while SPO3 Matias and the other members of the
team positioned themselves around ten (10) meters away to serve as back-up.
After the sachet containing white crystalline substance in the amount of Php100 was
handed to PO1 Esmallaner, the latter, apprehended Panganiban. Then he the other
members of the buy-bust team proceeded to Panganiban’s house and later on found 3
pieces of the same sachets as well as drug paraphernalia. The items confiscated were
marked and turned over to the Investigator who requested laboratory examination on
said items.
Three information were filed against Panganiban. Upon arraignment, Panganiban
pleaded not guilty of the crimes charged against him.
During the pre-trial conference, appellant admitted the existence and the contents of the
Request for Laboratory Examination and the Forensic Chemist Report, with the
qualification that the subject of the forensic report was not taken from him, and if ever
same was taken from him, it was obtained illegally.
RTC found Panganiban guilty of Violation of Section 5, 11, and 12 of R.A. 9165.
On appeal, the CA dismissed appellant’s appeal and affirmed RTC’s decision.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the evidences were inadmissible having been obtained in violation of
Sections 21 and 86 of RA. No. 9165.

RULING:
No. Appellant claims that the police officers violated Section 86 of Republic Act No.
9165 when the alleged buy-bust operation that led to the apprehension of appellant was
conducted without the involvement of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
However, the SC explained that Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall
be the "lead agency" in the investigations and prosecutions of drug-related cases.
Therefore, other law enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar
functions as the PDEA as long as illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to
the latter. Additionally, the same provision states that PDEA, serving as the
implementing arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board, "shall be responsible for the efficient
and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in the Act."
Moreover, non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not
fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team. Its non-compliance will not render an accused’s arrest illegal
or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
In the case under consideration, the SC found that the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the items involved were safeguarded. The seized/confiscated items were
immediately marked for proper identification. Thereafter, they were forwarded to the
Crime Laboratory for examination.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor. The evidence for the prosecution showed the
presence of all these elements. The poseur-buyer and the team leader of the
apprehending team narrated how the buy-bust happened, and that the shabu sold was
presented and identified in court. The poseur-buyer, PO1 Joselito Esmallaner, identified
appellant as the seller of the shabu. Esmallaner’s testimony was corroborated by the
team leader, SPO3 Leneal Matias. The white crystalline substance weighing 0.03 grams
which was bought from appellant for ₱100.00 was found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) per Chemistry Report.
Further, the testimonies of PO1 Joselito Esmallaner and SPO3 Leneal Matias credible.
It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts which are factual in nature and
which involve credibility are accorded respects when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts and speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can
be gathered from such findings.
In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug. All these elements have been established.
Hence, the appeal is DENIED.
G.R. No. 183819 July 23, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARSENIO CORTEZ y
MACALINDONG a.k.a. "Archie," Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:
A confidential informant reported to the Pasig City Police SDEU that a certain "Archie"
was selling shabu in the vicinity of Brgy. Buting, Pasig City. Upon being apprised of this
bit of information, SDEU Chief P/Insp. Melbert Esguerra held a briefing, formed a four-
man team to conduct a buy-bust operation, and designated SPO2 Zipagan to act as
team leader poseur-buyer. Two (2) PhP 100 bills to be used as buy-bust money were
handed to SPO2 Zipagan.
The informant introduced the poseur-buyer to "Archie." When asked how much he
wanted to buy, SPO2 Zipagan replied PhP 200 worth only and gave alias "Archie" the
marked money. Thereafter, "Archie" took out from his right pocket and handed to SPO2
Zipagan a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline
substance. Thereupon, SPO2 Zipagan executed the pre-arranged signal, by removing
his hat, signifying the consummation of the transaction. SPO2 Zipagan then introduced
himself and announced the seller’s arrest.
The seized transparent plastic sachet containing the white crystalline substance was
forwarded to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office. Forensic Chemical
Officer, conducted a qualitative examination on the said specimen weighing 0.04 gram.
The examined specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
RTC rendered judgment convicting Cortez of the crime of selling shabu penalized under
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
The CA affirmed RTC’s decision and Denied Cortez’ appeal.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the entrapment operation conducted by the Pasig City anti-drug
operatives against the appellant was illegal.
2. Whether or not the Chain of Custody was observed.
HELD:
1. No. In determining the occurrence of entrapment, two tests have been developed: the
subjective test and the objective test. Under the "subjective" view of entrapment, the
focus is on the intent or predisposition of the accused to commit a crime. Under the
"objective" view, on the other hand, the primary focus is on the particular conduct of
law enforcement officials or their agents and the accused’s predisposition
becomes irrelevant. The government agent’s act is evaluated in the light of the standard
of conduct exercised by reasonable persons generally and whether such conduct falls
below the acceptable standard for the fair and honorable administration of justice.
Courts have adopted the "objective" test in upholding the validity of a buy-bust
operation.
The established sequence of events in the instant case categorically shows a typical
buy-bust operation as a form of entrapment. The police officers’ conduct was within the
acceptable standard of fair and honorable administration of justice.

2. Yes. In People v. Pendatun, the Court reiterated the essential elements of the crime
of illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug
to another and (2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug.
All these elements were ably proved by the prosecution in the instant case. The fact of
sale and eventual delivery by Cortez, as seller, of a substance later identified as shabu
to SPO2 Zipagan, as buyer who paid Php200 for it, had been established.
A close examination of the IRR of RA 9165 readily reveals that the custodial chain rule
admits of exceptions. Thus, contrary to the brazen assertions of Cortez, the
prescriptions of the IRR’s Sec. 21 need not be followed with pedantic rigor as a
condition sine qua non for a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dange\\rous drugs.
Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not, by itself, render an accused’s arrest illegal or
the items seized/confiscated from the accused inadmissible in evidence. What is
essential is "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.”
In the instant case, there had been substantial compliance with the legal requirements
on the handling of the seized item. Its integrity and evidentiary value had not been
diminished. The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of the case has not been
shown to have been broken.