DATE CASE VIOLATION DOCTRINEJune 20, 2012 People vs.

Maraorao, G.R. No. 174369 - ACQUITTED

violation of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425, The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972

In order to convict appellant for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, or the shabu in this case, the prosecution evidence must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) the appellant was in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the appellant freely and consciously possessed the drug. (People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 451.)

In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused.[People v. Limpangog, 444 Phil. 691, 693 (2003).]  While a lone witness’ testimony is sufficient to convict an accused in certain instances, the testimony must be clear, consistent, and credible—qualities we cannot ascribe to this case.  Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must both come from a credible witness and be credible in itself – tested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years.[People v. Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 761, 769.] Clearly from the foregoing, the prosecution failed to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was indeed in possession of shabu, and that he freely and consciously possessed the same.

The presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.[People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 389, 399.]  In this case, the prosecution’s evidence failed to overcome the presumption of innocence, and thus, appellant is entitled to an acquittal. 

Indeed, suspicion no matter how strong must never sway judgment. Where there is reasonable doubt, the accused must be acquitted even though their innocence may not have been established.  The Constitution presumes a person innocent until proven guilty by proof beyond reasonable doubt.  When guilt is not proven with moral certainty, it has been our policy of long standing that the presumption of innocence must be favored, and exoneration granted as a matter of right.[Fernandez v. People, G.R. No. 138503, September 28, 2000, 341 SCRA 277, 299.]

June 13, 2012 People vs. Climaco, violation of Sections 5 and Constitutional Presumption of Innocence; Weight of Evidence

1

G.R. No. 199403 - ACQUITTED

11 of Republic Act No. 9165, for illegal possession and illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride

 The Constitution guarantees the accused’s presumption of innocence until proven guilty.   Section 14(2) of the Bill of Rights (Article III) provides that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved.

 Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court likewise states that, in a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, which produces absolute certainty.  Only moral certainly is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.  

The prosecution did not explain why the markings of the plastic sachets containing the alleged drugs, which were submitted to be “TR-B” and “TR-R,” became “GSC-1” and “GSC-2” in the Chemistry Report, Index of Exhibits and Minutes of the Hearing.  In their decisions, the RTC and CA were silent on the change of the markings.  In fact, since the markings are different, the presumption is that the substance in the plastic sachets marked as “TR-B” and “TR-R” is different from the substance in the plastic sachets marked as “GSC-1” and “GSC-2.”  There is no moral certainty that the substance taken from appellant is the same dangerous drug submitted to the laboratory and the trial court.  As held in Malillin v. People, to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases involving dangerous drugs, it is important that the substance illegally possessed in the first place be the same substance offered in court as exhibit.  This chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts are removed concerning the identity of the evidence.  When the identity of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not the same dangerous drug presented to the forensic chemist for review and examination, nor the same dangerous drug presented to the court, the identity of the dangerous drug is not preserved due to the broken chain of custody.  With this, an element in the criminal cases for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti,  is not proven, and the accused must then be acquitted based on reasonable doubt.  For this reason, Climaco must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt due to the broken chain of custody over the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from him. 

June 13, 2012 People vs. Ancheta, G.R. No. 197371, ACQUITTED

violation of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165)

In the very recent case People v. Umipang,[G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012.] we explained that the nature of a buy-bust operation necessitates a stringent application of the procedural safeguards specifically crafted by Congress in R.A. 9165 to counter potential police abuses.

Indeed, it is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items that is

2

of utmost importance in determining the admissibility of the evidence presented in court, especially in cases of buy-bust operations. That is why Congress saw fit to fashion a detailed procedure in order to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items would not be compromised. The marking of the seized items was only a piece in a detailed set of procedural safeguards embodied in R.A. 9165. If the arresting officers were unable to comply with the other requirements, they were under obligation to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be  fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience.

We reiterate that R.A. 9165 has a strict mandate for the arresting officers to comply with the afore-quoted procedural safeguards. We further note that, before the saving clause provided under it can be invoked, Section 21(a) of the IRR requires the prosecution to prove the twin conditions of (a) existence of justifiable grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case, the arresting officers neither presented nor explained justifiable grounds for their failure to (1) make a physical inventory of the seized items; (2) take photographs of the items; and (3) establish that a representative each from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official had been contacted and were present during the marking of the items. These errors were exacerbated by the fact that the officers had ample time to comply with these legal requirements, as they had already monitored and put accused-appellants on their watch list. The totality of these circumstances has led us to conclude that the apprehending officers deliberately disregarded the legal procedure under R.A. 9165. “These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up.”[People v. Umipang] Accused-appellants would thereby be discharged from the crimes of which they were convicted.

April 25, 2012

People vs. Umipang, GR No. 190321, - ACQUITTED

Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

Substantive law requires strict observance of the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. 9165 Although we have ruled in the past that mere procedural lapses in the conduct of a buy-bust operation are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecution’s cause, so long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, [Imson v. People, G.R. 193003, 13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 826] courts must still thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards drawn by the law. Consequently, Section 21(a) of the IRR provides for a saving clause in the procedures outlined under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which serves as a guide in ascertaining those procedural aspects that may be relaxed under justifiable grounds.

3

“this saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds” after which, “the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved.” [People v. Garcia] To repeat, noncompliance with the required procedure will not necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused if: (1) the noncompliance is on justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. [People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, 29 October 2008, 570 SCRA 273]

despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of law enforcers, [Imson v. People,] we stress that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. The provisions were crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. In People v. Coreche, [G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 350, fn. 16 at 358-359.] we explained thus: The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence found legislative expression in Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs the duty to “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”. (Emphasis supplied.)

Material irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operations In the recent case of People v. Relato, we reiterated the following:In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165, the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court. Any gap renders the case for

4

the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, Relato deserves exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense of frame-up became plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecution’s evidence of guilt. [G.R. No. 173794, 18 January 2012.]

Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted.[People v. Ulama, G.R. No. 186530, 14 December 2011] This is especially true when the lapses in procedure were “recognized and explained in terms of [] justifiable grounds.”[People v. Martin] There must also be a showing “that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some justifiable consideration/reason.”[People v. Martin] However, when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence.[People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, 25 February 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 266-267] This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties.[Id] As a result, the prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.[Id]

For the arresting officers’ failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from the totality of the procedural lapses committed in this case that the arresting officers deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in favor of accused-appellant, “as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.”[People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, 29 October 2008, 570 SCRA 273]

April 18, 2012

Reyes vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 180177 - ACQUITTED

violations of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

The buy-bust operation mounted against petitioner resulted from the tip of an unnamed lady confidential informant. Such an operation, according to People v. Garcia,[G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259.] was “susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion,” and the possibility of that abuse was great. [Id., at p. 267, citing People v. Tan, G.R. No. 133001, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 116.] The susceptibility to abuse of the operation led to the institution of several procedural safeguards by R.A. No. 9165, mainly to guide the law enforcers. Thus, the State must show a faithful compliance with such safeguards during the prosecution of every drug-related offense.[Id., at p. 267, citing People v. Tan, G.R. No. 133001, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 116.]

5

 The procedural safeguards start with the requirements prescribed by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 relating to the custody and disposition of the confiscated, seized, and surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of  the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments and paraphernalia, and laboratory equipment.

This duty of seeing to the integrity of the dangerous drugs and substances is discharged only when the arresting law enforcer ensures that the chain of custody is unbroken. This has been the reason for defining chain of custody under Section 1(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, viz:

 (b)   “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 or custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and the final disposition; (Emphasis supplied)

We clarified in People v. Sanchez[G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.] that in compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, supra, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized articles should be conducted, if practicable, at the place of seizure or confiscation in cases of warrantless seizure. But that was true only if there were indications that petitioner tried to escape or resisted arrest, which might provide the reason why the arresting team was not able to do the inventory or photographing at petitioner’s house; otherwise, the physical inventory and photographing must always be immediately executed at the place of seizure or confiscation.

 In People v. Pringas,[G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828.]  the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21, supra, was held not to be fatal for as long as there was justifiable ground for it, and for as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated or seized articles were properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. The Court further pronounced therein that such non-compliance would not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible, for what was of utmost importance was the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized or confiscated articles, considering that they were to be utilized in the determination of

6

the guilt or innocence of the accused.  

However, the omissions noted herein indicated that the State did not establish the identity of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from petitioner with the same exacting certitude required for a finding of guilt.

Conviction must stand on the strength of the Prosecution’s evidence, not on the weakness of the defense the accused put up.[People v. Obeso, G.R. No. 152285, October 24, 2003, 414 SCRA 447, 460; People v. Decillo, G.R. No. 121408, October 2, 2000, 341 SCRA 591, 598-599.] Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal should come as a matter of course.

April 11, 2012

People vs. ABEDIN, G.R. No. 179936 - CONVICTED

violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002

In cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[People v. Navarro, G.R. No. 173790, October 11, 2007, 535 SCRA 644, 649, citing People v. Saludes, G.R. No. 144157, June 10, 2003, 403 SCRA 590, 595.]  In this case, no such evidence was adduced showing any irregularity in any material aspect of the conduct of the buy-bust operation.

Noncompliance with Section 21 will not render the arrest of an accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.[People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448; People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 636, citing People v. Pringas, supra note 27 at 842-843.] 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.[People v. Naquita, id.] 

While it is true that Section 86 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the National Bureau of Investigation, PNP and the Bureau of Customs to maintain “close coordination with the PDEA on all drug-related matters,” the provision does not, by so saying, make PDEA’s participation a condition sine qua non for every buy-bust operation.  After all, a buy-bust is just a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of the Court which police authorities may rightfully resort to in apprehending violators of R.A. No. 9165 in support of the PDEA.  A buy-bust operation is not invalidated by mere non-coordination with the PDEA.[People v. Roa, G.R. No. 186134, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 359, 368-370.]

Neither is the lack of prior surveillance fatal.  It must be stressed that prior surveillance is not

7

a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation.  This issue in the prosecution of illegal drugs cases, again, has long been settled by this Court.  We have been consistent in our ruling that prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-bust operation, especially if the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by their informant.[People v. Lacbanes, 336 Phil. 933, 941 (1997).]

In People v. Eugenio,[443 Phil. 411, 422-423 (2003).] the Court held that there is no requirement that prior surveillance should be conducted before a buy-bust operation can be undertaken especially when the policemen are accompanied to the scene by their civilian informant.  Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or a buy-bust operation, there being no fixed or textbook method for conducting one.  When time is of essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.  It is therefore clear that the buy-bust operation, albeit made without the participation of PDEA and conducted without prior surveillance, did not violate Abedin’s constitutional right to be protected from illegal arrest.

April 11, 2012

People vs. Biyala, G.R. No. 177224 - Convicted

violations of Section 8, Article II and Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425

Illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is committed when the following elements concur:  “(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.”[People v. Lagata, 452 Phil. 846, 853 (2003).]

 All these elements were established beyond reasonable doubt in the cases against accused-appellant.  The prosecution witnesses consistently and categorically testified that pursuant to a search warrant duly issued by a judge, they found and seized from accused-appellant’s house and actual possession a brick of marijuana leaves and heat-sealed sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 

In contrast, accused-appellant only proffered the defenses of denial and frame-up, that the dangerous drugs and paraphernalia were planted by the police officers. 

 Moreover, “in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.”[People v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 114 (2002).]  In the absence of proof of any odious intent to falsely impute a serious crime, the self-serving defenses of denial and unsubstantiated claim of frame-up of an accused can never prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.[People v. Ambrosio, 471 Phil. 241, 267 (2004).]  

8

In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, a case becomes “a contest of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.  The reason is obvious.  Having the full opportunity to observe directly the witnesses' deportment and manner of testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to evaluate testimonial evidence properly.  The rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.”[People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 444.]

April 11, 2012

People vs. Figueroa, G.R. No.  186141

violation of Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

Lack of Prior Coordination with the PDEA - It is settled that Section 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the the law enforcers’ failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA.  Thus, in People v. Berdadero,[G.R. No. 179710,  June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 196.] the Court noted that Section 86, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation.  This Court consequently held that “this silence [cannot] be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.”[People v. Berdadero]  The same conclusion was reached by this Court in People v. Roa,[G.R. No. 186134, May 6, 2010, 620 SCRA 359.] People v. Mantalaba[G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011.] and People v. Sabadlab.[G.R. No. 186392, January 18, 2012.]

March 21, 2012

People vs. Cardenas, G. R. No. 190342 - CONVICTED

selling the prohibited drug methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Chain of custody

In People v. Salonga,[G.R. No. 186390, 02 October 2009, 602 SCRA 783.] we held that it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. Thus, drug enforcement agents and police officers involved in a buy-bust operation are required by R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules to mark all seized evidence at the buy-bust scene.

The chain of custody is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165. 

To protect the civil liberties of the innocent, the rule ensures that the prosecution’s evidence meets the stringent standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. We have held, however that substantial compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible. In People v. Ara,[People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, 23 December 2009, 609 SCRA 304] we ruled that R.A. 9165 and its IRR do not require strict compliance with the chain of custody rule.

9

  Briefly stated, non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons, is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation. (Emphasis supplied.)

Although we find that the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of the IRR implementing R.A. 9165, the noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from the accused, because the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case.  We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight – evidentiary merit or probative value – to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case. (Emphasis supplied.)

March 7, 2012

People vs. Paler, G.R. No. 188103 - Convicted

violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.  What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 449.] The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.  The testimonial and the documentary pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against the appellant establish the presence of these elements.

Plainly, the prosecution established the crucial links in the chain of custody of the sold and seized sachet of shabu, from the time it was first seized from the appellant, until it was brought for examination and presented in court.  The identity, quantity and quality of the illegal drugs remained untarnished and preserved; hence, the integrity of the drugs seized remained intact.

February 15, 2012

People vs. Clarite, G.R. No.  187157 - Convicted

violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers on the ground that they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.  The exception is when there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties.[People v. Tion, G.R. No. 172092,  December 16, 2009, 608

10

SCRA 299, 316-317.]  In the case at bar, accused-appellant’s only evidence of ill motive on the part of the NBI operatives is his own testimony of frame-up and extortion, a very common defense in dangerous drugs cases.  We have held that such defense is viewed with disfavor, for it can be easily concocted. To substantiate such a defense, therefore, the evidence must be clear and convincing.[Zalameda v. People, G.R. No. 183656, September 4, 2009, 598 SCRA 537, 556.]

As for accused-appellant’s argument that he would not have sold shabu in a crowded place, we find the same unconvincing.  We have already held in Ching v. People[G.R. No. 177237, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 711.] that:

 This Court observed in many cases that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private as well as in public places, even in the daytime.  Indeed, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law.  Hence, what matters is not the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.[Ching v. People, at 734]

This Court has already held that the silence of the foregoing provision as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the prior authority of the PDEA cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without such PDEA participation illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.[People v. Berdadero, G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 196, 207.] 

February 8, 2012

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES vs. FLORDELIZA ARRIOLAy DE LARA, G.R. No. 187736 - CONVICTED

Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165

On this point, it is good to note the case of People v. Dela Rosa, where this Court held that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on the part of the police officers.[G.R. No. 185166, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 635, 657.]

Arriola is of the position that there was no proof that the alleged confiscated shabu was taken from her. She adds that there was violation of the chain of custody on the part of the buy-bust team. Specifically, she claims that SPO4 Taruc did not explain how the corpus delicti transferred hands from the time it was supposedly confiscated from her to the time it was presented in court as evidence.[16] In the prosecution of drug related cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt. Its existence is a condition

11

sine qua non. It is precisely in this regard that central to this requirement is the question of whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually the one that was seized from or sold by Arriola.[People v. Kimura, 471 Phil. 895, 909 (2004).] As such, the chain of custody rule has been adopted in order to address this core issue.

People v. Kamad,[G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.] the Court enumerated therein the different links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely: 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.

The position of Arriola that the prosecution failed to discuss in detail the different links in the chain as to the transfer of hands of the evidence will not necessarily render said evidence to be incompetent to convict Arriola for the crime of sale of illegal drugs. It must be remembered that testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 718.] As such, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[People v. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011, 640 SCRA 697, 718.] The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered. Besides, all that Arriola did in her supplemental brief was make a general allegation that prosecution failed to observe the chain of custody rule without pinpointing the exact link or links that may have been compromised to bring doubt to the integrity of the evidence.

 So, in this case, Arriola has the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers, as well as a presumption that said public officers properly discharged their duties.[People v. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011, citing People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562.] Resultantly, since she failed to discharge such burden, it cannot be disputed that the drugs seized from her were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. The prosecution, therefore, established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.[People v. Castro, G.R. No. 194836, June 15, 2011, citing People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562.]

12

January 18, 2012

PEOPLE vs. MARCOS SABADLAB y NARCISO @ “Bong Pango,” G.R. No.  186392 - CONVICTED

Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165

In the recent case of People v. Tion, [People v. Tion, G.R. No. 172092, December 16, 2009, 608 SCRA 299.] this Court had the opportunity to discuss the weight given to testimonies of members of buy-bust teams in drug-related cases:

 Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.  Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties.  x x x.[Id. at 316-317.]  

Similarly, in another case, “[w]e have invariably viewed with disfavor the defenses of denial and frame-up for such defenses can easily be fabricated and are common ploy in prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.  In order to prosper, such defenses must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.”[People v. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 184952,  October 11, 2010, 632 SCRA 551, 569.]

As this Court held in People v. Berdadero,[G.R. No. 179710, June 29, 2010, 622 SCRA 196.] the foregoing provision, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, “is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation  x x x.  [T]his silence cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.”[Id. at 207.]  In the case at bar, even if we assume for the sake of argument that Narciso Sabadlab and accused-appellant Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso alias Bong Pango could have been different persons, the established fact remains that it was accused-appellant who was caught in flagrante delicto by the buy-bust team.  Following the aforementioned jurisprudence, even the lack of participation of PDEA would not make accused-appellant’s arrest illegal or the evidence obtained pursuant thereto inadmissible.

 Neither is prior surveillance a necessity for the validity of the buy-bust operation.   People v. Padua,[G.R. No. 174097,  July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220.]

13

 In People v. Doria,[G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668.] this Court laid down the objective test in evaluating buy-bust operations:

 We therefore stress that the “objective” test in buy-bust operations demands that the details of the purported transaction must be clearly and adequately shown.  This must start from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.  The manner by which the initial contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the “buy-bust” money, and the delivery of the illegal drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense.  Criminals must be caught but not at all cost.  At the same time, however, examining the conduct of the police should not disable courts into ignoring the accused's predisposition to commit the crime.  If there is overwhelming evidence of habitual delinquency, recidivism or plain criminal proclivity, then this must also be considered.  Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused to commit an offense in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the defense of inducement.[Id. at 698-699.]

January 18, 2012

People vs. DARWIN RELATO y AJERO, G.R. No. 173794, ACQUITTED

Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related items are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented against the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of illegal possession or illegal sale of prohibited drugs.

A review of the records establishes that the aforestated procedure laid down by Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR was not followed. Several lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are readily apparent. To start with, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the buy-bust team did not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime and in the presence of Relato and witnesses. Thirdly, although there was testimony about the marking of the seized items being made at the police station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence of Relato or his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no representative of the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official attended the taking of the physical inventory and to sign the inventory.

Under the foregoing rules, the marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items will use the markings as reference. It further serves to segregate the marked evidence from the corpus

14

of all other similar and related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, “planting,” or contamination of evidence.11 It is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody.

While the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of non-compliance irreversibly prejudices the State’s evidence, it is significant to note that the application of the saving mechanism to a situation is expressly conditioned upon the State rendering an explanation of the lapse or lapses in the compliance with the procedures.13 Here, however, the Prosecution tendered no explanation why the buy-bust team had failed to mark the seized shabu immediately after the arrest. Nevertheless, even assuming that marking the shabu at the scene of the crime by the buy-bust team had not been practical or possible for the buy-bust team to do, the saving mechanism would still not be applicable due to the lack of a credible showing of any effort undertaken by the buy-bust team to keep the shabu intact while in transit to the police station.

In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165,15 the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense of, but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti, failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented as evidence in court.16 Any gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.17

Thus, Relato deserves exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense of frame-up became plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecution’s evidence of guilt.

January 18, 2012

PEOPLE vs. GERON DE LOS SANTOS, G.R. No. 170839, Convicted

In a prosecution for possession of illegal substances, proof of animus possidendi on the part of the accused is indispensable. But animus possidendi is a state of mind, and is thus to be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior and contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. It may and must be inferred usually from the attendant events in each particular case.23 Upon the State’s presenting to the trial court of the facts and circumstances from which to infer the existence of animus possidendi, it becomes incumbent upon the Defense to rebut the inference with evidence that the accused did not exercise power and control of the illicit thing in question, and did not intend to do so. For that purpose, a mere unfounded assertion of the accused that he did not know that he had possession of the illegal drug is insufficient,24 and animus possidendi is then presumed to exist on his part because he was thereby shown to have

15

performed an act that the law prohibited and punished.25

It cannot be disputed that Delos Santos had animus possidendi. His conduct prior to and following his apprehension evinced his guilty knowledge of the contents of the gift-wrapped box as shabu. His uncorroborated story of having been summoned to help in the cleaning of Unit 706 was a sham excuse that he peddled to explain his presence in the Somerset Condominium. His explanation was useless, however, because he was no longer employed as a janitor of the Somerset Condominium at the time of his arrest after being already terminated from employment.26 Correlatively, his willingness to run for Wilson the errand of delivering the gift-wrapped box to the unnamed person near the Jollibee Vito Cruz extension branch proved that he was serving as a courier of shabu. Besides, his guilty knowledge was confirmed by his unreasonable refusal to exit from Unit 706 despite the demand of the NBI agents to do so, and by his stealthy transfer to the adjoining Unit 705. Had he been truly innocent, he would have voluntarily cooperated with the NBI agents instead of attempting to escape from them.

December 14, 2011

People vs NELLY ULAMA, G.R. No. 186530

violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.[People v. Morales, G.R. No. 188608, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA 612, 619.]

The Court is aware of the stringent requirements laid down in Section 21, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 9165 which 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.

 However, minor deviations from the foregoing procedure would not necessarily result in an acquittal.  In the past, we have also declared that “the failure to conduct an inventory and to photograph the confiscated items in the manner prescribed under the said provision of law x x

16

x cannot be used as a ground for appellant’s exoneration from the charge against him/her.”[People v. Gratil, G.R. No. 182236, June 22, 2011.] Likewise, we have also ruled that “[t]he prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.”[People v. Zeng Hua Dian, G.R. No. 145348, June 14, 2004, 432 SCRA 25, 32.]  Thus, appellant’s argument that the prosecution’s failure to present the chief investigator in court is fatal to its case cannot prosper. 

November 14, 2011

People vs. Bara, G.R. No. 184808 - Convicted

illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

The witness for the prosecution successfully proved that a buy-bust operation indeed took place, and the shabu subject of the sale was brought to, and duly identified in, court.

We also find that the totality of the presented evidence leads to an unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated item from the appellant.

Plainly, the prosecution established the crucial links in the chain of custody of the sold and seized sachet of shabu, from the time it was first seized from the appellant, until it was brought for examination and presented in court.

If a flaw exists at all in the prosecution’s case, such flaw is in the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. We note, however, that at no time during trial and even on appeal did the defense question the entrapment team’s alleged non-compliance with Section 21.

 At any rate, non-compliance by the police with the directive of Section 21, Article 11 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to a prosecution’s case, in light of the last sentence of its implementing rules expressly stating 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[.]”

 Jurisprudence teems with pronouncements that failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. To reiterate, what assumes utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these are the critical pieces of evidence in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[See People v. Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 494, 507, citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 445-446, People v. Del Monte,

17

G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA, 627, 636, and People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843.]

 It must be stressed that said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of the accused-appellant to challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject drugs and drug paraphernalia before the RTC.

October 19, 2011

HO WAI PANG vs. People, G.R. No. 176229, Convicted

Section 15, Article III, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425

Jurisprudence teaches that in assessing the credibility of a witness, his testimony must be considered in its entirety instead of in truncated parts.  The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its isolated parts and anchor a conclusion on the basis of said parts.  “In ascertaining the facts established by a witness, everything stated by him on direct, cross and redirect examinations must be calibrated and considered.”[46]  Also, where there is nothing in the records which would show a motive or reason on the part of the witnesses to falsely implicate the accused, identification should be given full weight.   Here, petitioner presented no evidence or anything to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution, Cinco, was moved by any improper motive, hence her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. Verily, the evidence adduced against petitioner is so overwhelming that this Court is convinced that his guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.  Nothing else can speak so eloquently of his culpability than the unassailable fact that he was caught red-handed in the very act of transporting, along with his co-accused, shabu into the country.  In stark contrast, the evidence for the defense consists mainly of denials.  Petitioner tried to show that he was not aware of the shabu inside his luggage considering that his bag was provided by the travel agency.  However, it bears stressing that the act of transporting a prohibited drug is a malum prohibitum because it is punished as an offense under a special law.  As such, the mere commission of the act is what constitutes the offense punished and same suffices to validly charge and convict an individual caught committing the act so punished regardless of criminal intent. Moreover, beyond his bare denials, petitioner has not presented any plausible proof to successfully rebut the evidence for the prosecution. “It is basic that affirmative testimony of persons who are eyewitnesses of the events or facts asserted easily overrides negative testimony.”[People v. Bartolome, G.R. No. 129486, July 4, 2008, 557 SCRA 20, 30.] 

October 5, 2011

People vs. Ulat, G.R. No. 180504, Acquitted

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

 Moreover, owing to the built-in dangers of abuse that a buy-bust operation entails, the law prescribes specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, independently of the general procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.[People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 208.] 

A meticulous review of the records of this case has led us to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to demonstrate with moral certainty that the identity and integrity of the

18

prohibited drug, which constitutes the corpus delicti, had been duly preserved. 

First, the records reveal that the prosecution did not establish the exact location where the confiscated illegal drug was marked and the identity of the person who marked it because of contradicting testimonies from the prosecution’s witnesses.

Taking into consideration all the conflicting accounts of Pol-ot and PO1 Santos, the Court believes that any reasonable mind would entertain grave reservations as to the identity and integrity of the confiscated sachet of shabu submitted for laboratory examination.  As likewise correctly raised by appellant, apart from the testimony that PO1 Santos turned over the accused to an unnamed duty inspector,[23] the prosecution evidence does not disclose with clarity how the confiscated sachet passed hands until it was received by the chemical analyst at the Philippine National Police (PNP) crime laboratory.  In other words, the prosecution could not present an unbroken chain of custody for the seized illegal drug.

 In Zaragga v. People,[24] we held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti.  Thus, the accused were acquitted due to the prosecution’s failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu.  In People v. Sitco,[G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010, 620 SCRA 561.] we enumerated other occasions wherein acquittal was proper for failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of custody, such as:

 In a string of cases, we declared that the failure of the

prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before it was finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused.   

 As in People v. Partoza, this case suffers from the failure

of the prosecution witness to provide the details establishing an unbroken chain of custody. In Partoza, the police officer testifying did not relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over . The evidence of the prosecution likewise did not disclose the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending presentation in court.[26]

19

(Emphases supplied; citations omitted.)September 28, 2011

People vs. Unisa, GR No. 18572, - CONVICTED

Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for

1. selling, delivering and giving away to another Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug weighing 0.02 gram

2. possession, custody and control Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.43 gram

What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. [People v. Gaspar, G.R. No. 192816, 6 July 2011]  Clearly, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller.  As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated. [People v. Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 185166, 26 January 2011]

Possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, which is sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession.  The burden of evidence is, thus, shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. [People v. Pendatun, 478 Phil. 201, 212 (2004)]

Jurisprudence is clear that failure to mark the boodle money is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution.  Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used in a buy-bust operation much less is it required that the boodle money be marked. [People v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504, 515 (2002)] Similarly, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution provided that the prosecution has adequately proved the sale. [People v. Bongalon, 425 Phil. 96, 117 (2002)] Hence, the only elements necessary to consummate the crime of illegal sale of shabu is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. [People v. Gonzales]

There are no provisions either in Republic Act No. 9165 or its Implementing Rules and Regulations requiring that (1) the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet that should be transmitted to PDEA must only be signed by the person who conducted the briefing; and (2) the buy-bust money to be used in the actual buy-bust operation must be dusted with ultra-violet powder.  The Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet and the use of dusted money are not indispensable to prove the illegal sale of shabu.  These two are not part of the elements of the aforesaid offense.  To repeat, in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, what is important is the fact that the poseur-buyer received shabu from the accused-appellant and the same was presented as evidence in court, [People v. Requiz, 376 Phil. 750, 760 (1999)] which the prosecution in this case was able to do so.  As has been previously discussed, all the elements of illegal sale of shabu were adequately proven and established by

20

the prosecution. 

The prosecution’s failure to conduct the required photograph of the seized drugs in compliance with the provision of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, will not work to the advantage of appellant.  Non-compliance thereto is not fatal and will not render appellant’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. [Imson v. People, G.R. No. 193003, 13 July 2011 citing People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, 27 June 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 436-437 and People v. Campos, G.R. No. 186526, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA 462, 468.]  As can be observed, the implementing rules offer some flexibility when a proviso added 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.” [People v. Manlangit] Thus, 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. [Imson v. People citing People v. Concepcion and People v. Campos]

September 28, 2011

PDEA vs Brodett, G.R. No. 196390 – Petition for review is denied.

Section 5, in relation to Section 26(b), of Republic Act No. 9165

The legal provision applicable to the confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the unlawful act, including the properties or proceeds derived from illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs and precursors and essential chemicals,is Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165.

There is no question, for even PDEA has itself pointed out, that the text of Section 20 of R. A. No. 9165relevant to the confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of the unlawful act is similar to that ofArticle 45 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Court has interpreted and applied Article 45of the Revised Penal Codein People v. Jose,[28]concerning the confiscation and forfeiture of the car used by the four accused when they committed theforcible abduction with rape, although the car did not belong to any of them, holding: 

xxx Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code bars the confiscation and forfeiture of an instrument or tool used in the commission of the crime if such “be the property of a third person not liable for the offense,” it is the sense of this Court that the order of the court below for the confiscation of the car in question should be set aside and that the said car should be ordered delivered to the intervenor for foreclosure as decreed in the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila in replevin case. xxx[No. L-28232, February

21

6, 1971, 37 SCRA 450.] 

Such interpretation is extended by analogy to Section 20, supra. To bar the forfeiture of the tools and instruments belonging to a third person,therefore, there must be an indictment charging such third person either as a principal, accessory, or accomplice. Less than that will not suffice to prevent the return of the tools and instruments to the third person, for a mere suspicion of that person’s participation is not sufficient ground for the court to order the forfeiture of the goods seized.[I Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 15th Edition, pp. 638-639.]

Indeed, forfeiture, if warrantedpursuant to either Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165, would be a part of the penalty to be prescribed. The determination of whetheror not the car (or any other article confiscated in relation to the unlawful act) would be subject of forfeiture could be made only when the judgment was to be rendered in the proceedings. Section 20 is also clear as to this.

August 31, 2011

People vs. Mendoza, G.R. No.  186387 - Convicted

Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165

In the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, the following links must be established: 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.[Ampatuan v. People, G.R. No. 183676, June 22, 2011, citing People v. Magpayo, G.R. No. 187069, October 20, 2010, 634 SCRA 441, 451 citing People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308.]

August 31, 2011

ABRAHAM MICLAT, JR vs. People, G.R. No. 176077 - CONVICTED

Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165

What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable warrantless search or seizure is purely a judicial question, determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved, including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles procured.[People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, February 22, 2007, 516 SCRA 463, 476.]

the failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with the rule is not fatal.  It does not render petitioner’s arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him inadmissible.[People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 218, citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448.] 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.”[People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 202, 218, citing People v.

22

Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 448.]

It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 556, 564.]  Although not constrained to blindly accept the findings of fact of trial courts, appellate courts can rest assured that such facts were gathered from witnesses who presented their statements live and in person in open court. In cases where conflicting sets of facts are presented, the trial courts are in the best position to recognize and distinguish spontaneous declaration from rehearsed spiel, straightforward assertion from a stuttering claim, definite statement from tentative disclosure, and to a certain degree, truth from untruth.[People v. Willie Midenilla, et al., G.R. No. 186470, September 27, 2010.]

August 31, 2011

People vs. Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 174774, Acquitted

violation of Section 21 of Article IV, in relation to Section 16 of Article III, of Republic Act No. 6425

Guided by the settled rule that “where the inculpatory facts admit of several interpretations, one consistent with accused's innocence and another with his guilt, the evidence thus adduced fail[ed] to meet the test of moral certainty,”[People v. Mariano, 412 Phil. 252, 258 (2001).] we find that the findings and conclusion of the RTC in its subsequent Order[64] dated January 12, 2004 (in which it acquitted Emmanuel de Claro) is more in keeping with the evidence on record in this case.  It bears to stress that the very same evidence were presented against Emmanuel de Claro and accused-appellants; if the evidence is insufficient to convict the former, then it is also insufficient to convict the latter. 

There are also material inconsistencies between the police-witnesses’ sworn statements following accused-appellants’ arrest and their testimonies before the RTC. 

Furthermore, even assuming that the prosecution’s version of the events that took place on the night of February 17, 2000 were true, it still failed to establish probable cause to justify the in flagrante delicto arrests of accused-appellants and search of accused-appellants’ persons, incidental to their arrests, resulting in the seizure of the shabu in accused-appellants’ possession.

August 31, 2011 Aurelio vs. People, G.R. No. 174980 - CONVICTED

violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165

In a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (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.  What is crucial to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is evidence of the transaction, as well as the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.  On the other hand, in a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, there must be proof 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

23

possession of the drug.”[People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 295 (2003).]

The Inconsistencies in the Testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses are Trivial.

Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses that refer to trivial and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility.[People v. Mationg, 407 Phil. 771, 787 (2001)] Moreover, minor inconsistencies serve to strengthen rather than diminish the prosecution’s case as they tend to erase any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed thereby negating any misgiving that the same were perjured.[People v. Garcia, 424 Phil. 158, 184-185 (2002).]

 Testimonies of witnesses need only to corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence.  “Besides, it is to be expected that the testimony of witnesses regarding the same incident may be inconsistent in some aspects because different persons may have different impressions or recollection of the same incident.”[People v. Sy Bing Yok, 368 Phil. 326, 336 (1999).]

August 15, 2011

Sy vs. People, G.R. No. 182178 - CONVICTED

Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165

As to the admissibility of the seized drug in evidence, it is necessary for us to ascertain whether or not the search which yielded the alleged contraband was lawful.[Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 611, 622.]

It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 556, 564.] 

 In addition, buttressing the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, the arresting officers substantially complied with the rules on the custody and disposition of evidence recovered from petitioner.

August 10, 2011

People vs. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, Acquitted

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

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction.[See People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 308.] In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and proof of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.[People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 179213, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 92, 101.] To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity

24

and integrity of the seized drug, the evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same illicit drug actually recovered from the appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails.[See People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 308.]

The Chain of Custody Rule and the “Marking” Requirement

Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody as “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.”

Thus, crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. “Marking” means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized.[People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.] Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs casts reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.[ee People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 357-358.] Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.[ee People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 357-358.]

 In the present case, the records do not show that the apprehending team marked the seized items with their initials immediately upon confiscation. In Sanchez,[People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.] we explained that consistency with the chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation. We clarified in People v. Manuel Resurreccion[G.R. No. 186380, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 510, 520.] that “[m]arking upon immediate confiscation” does not exclude the possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the present case, the testimonies of the apprehending officers do not indicate that they ever marked the seized items, either at the

25

place of seizure or at the police station. How the police could have omitted such a basic and vital procedure in the initial handling of the seized drugs truly baffles us. Going back to what we earlier discussed, succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the markings as reference. If at the first instance or opportunity, the apprehending team did not mark the seized item/s, then there is nothing to identify it later on as it passes from one hand to another.

The second link in the chain of custody is the turnover of the confiscated drug from PO1 Mengote to the police station. To recall, after PO1 Mengote allegedly received the plastic sachet from the appellant, he made the pre-arranged signal to his companions. The other members of the buy-bust team approached the appellant, introduced themselves as police officers, and arrested him. Thereafter, they brought him and the confiscated item to the police station.

 Notably, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the person who took custody of the seized item at the police station. Although the request for laboratory examination was signed by P/Supt. Fegarido, the Chief of the District Drug Enforcement Group, we cannot assume that he was the person who received the seized item from PO1 Mengote, in the absence of any testimony proving such fact.

 For the succeeding links in the chain of custody, the evidence shows that the confiscated item was forwarded to the PNP Crime  Laboratory by one SPO2 Pepano, and then received by a certain “Relos.” P/Insp. Gural examined the submitted specimen, and found it positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. As previously discussed, there was a missing link in the custody of the confiscated item after it left the possession of PO1 Mengote. The police did not only fail to mark the specimen immediately upon seizure; it likewise failed to identify the police officer to whose custody the confiscated item was given at the police station. Thus, we cannot conclude with certainty that the item seized from the appellant was the same as that presented for laboratory examination and, later on, presented in court.

Non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph 1,Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165

Lest the chain of custody rule be misunderstood, we clarify that non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements does not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held to be valid, provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for  the  non-compliance,  and (b) the  integrity  and  evidentiary  value of the seized items are shown to have been properly preserved. These conditions, however, were

26

not met in the present case as the prosecution did not even attempt  to  offer  any  justification for  the  failure of the police to follow the  prescribed  procedures  in the handling of the seized items. As we held in People v. Ronaldo De Guzman y Danzil,[G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010, 616 SCRA 652.] the failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained. The justifiable ground for the non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

No Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official DutiesIn the present case, the procedural lapses by the apprehending team in the handling of the seized items – from their failure to mark it immediately upon confiscation, to their failure to inventory and photograph it in the presence of the accused, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official, without offering any justifiable ground – effectively negated the presumption of regularity.

August 3, 2011

People vs. Fermin, G.R. No. 179344, Acquitted

violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

Strict compliance with the prescribed procedures is required because of the unique characteristic of illegal drugs, rendering them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.  Hence, we have the rules on the measures to be observed during and after the seizure, during the custody and transfer of the drugs for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court.[People v. Magpayo, G.R. No. 187069, 20 October 2010.]

 The following are the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: 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.[People v. Magpayo, G.R. No. 187069, 20 October 2010.]

 As provided by the implementing rules and jurisprudence, strict compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 can be disregarded as long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved; and its preservation can be well established if the chain of custody of illegal drug was unbroken. The break is clear in this case.

The fundamentals of a criminal prosecution were, indeed, disregarded.  In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law’s own starting perspective on the status of the

27

accused – in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charged laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.[People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, 19 January 2011; People v. Sanchez, supra note 42 at 207.]  The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required.  To repeat, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense.  And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf.  In which case, the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted.[People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, 29 October 2008, 570 SCRA 273, 283.] 

 The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the two accused.   The rule that high respect must be accorded the lower courts in their findings of facts cannot be misused to diminish the required evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution.

July 20, 2011 People vs. ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA, G.R. No. 186227, Convicted

violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) 9165

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.[25] Its non-compliance will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[26] 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.[27]  In this particular case, it is undisputed that police officers Pajo and Simon were members of the buy-bust operation team.  The fact that it was Inspector Ferdinand B. Dacillo who signed the letter-request for laboratory examination does not in any way affect the integrity of the items confiscated.  All the requirements for the proper chain of custody had been observed. 

July 13, 2011 People vs. JAIME GATLABAYAN, G.R. No. 186467 - ACQUITTED

violation of Section 5 (1), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165

The narcotic substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore of prime importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt.[People v. Frondozo, G.R. No. 177164, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 407, 417.] Otherwise stated, it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in evidence before the court. Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the offense must be established. The chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 132.]

The prosecution evidence also failed to identify the person who marked the sachet, how the same was done, and who witnessed the marking. In People v. Martinez,[G.R. No. 191366,

28

December 13, 2010.] the Court ruled that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence - should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation – in order to protect innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and the apprehending officers as well from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.

While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to susceptibility of the seized drug to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.[G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 52, 61.] Hence, each and every link in the custody must be established beginning from the seizure of the shabu from the accused during the entrapment operation until its submission by the forensic chemist to the RTC. Indeed, the Court cannot entirely discount the likelihood or at least the possibility that there could have been alteration, tampering or substitution of substance in the chain of custody of the subject shabu, inadvertently or otherwise, from another case with a similar narcotic substance seized or subjected for chemical analysis.

July 6, 2011 People vs. Gaspar, G.R. No. 192816, Convicted

violation of (1) Section 5, paragraph 1, Article II (Illegal Sale of Shabu);3 (2) Section 11, 2nd paragraph, No. 3, Article II (Illegal Possession of Shabu);4 and (3) Section 12, Article II (Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs),5 all of Republic Act No. 91656

Drug pushing, especially the ones done on a small scale, happens instantly. The illegal transaction takes place after the offer to buy is accepted and the exchange is made. Since Gaspar was already about to enter the house, he may not have intended to keep the door open when PO1 Soreta approached him to carry out a sale transaction. Thus, at the time the arrest was made, it would not have been improbable for the drug paraphernalia to be seen from outside because of the open door.

In drug related cases, what is relevant is the agreement and acts constituting the sale and delivery of the dangerous drug between the seller and buyer and not the existing familiarity between them. It is of common knowledge that pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle prohibited drugs in the open like any articles of commerce. (People v. Merabueno, G.R. No. 87179, 14 December 1994, 239 SCRA 197.) Drug pushers do not confine their nefarious trade to known customers and complete strangers are accommodated provided they have the money to pay.(People v. Solon, 314 Phil. 495 (1995).) Thus, it is not improbable that Gaspar sold shabu to a complete stranger like PO1 Soreta who presented himself as a buyer.

Also, while an accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own strength and not rely on the weakness of the evidence of the defense.(People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569, 28 November 2007, 539 SCRA 306.) In this case, the quantum of evidence necessary to prove appellant’s guilt beyond

29

reasonable doubt had been sufficiently met. Thus, the prosecution was able to overcome appellant’s constitutional right to be presumed innocent.

July 6, 2011 People vs. Laylo, G.R. No. 192235

violation of Section 26(b), Article II (Attempted Sale of Dangerous Drugs)3 of Republic Act No. 9165

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.(People v. Llamado, G.R. No. 185278, 13 March 2009, 581 SCRA 544, citing People v. Ong, G.R. No. 175940, 6 February 2008, 544 SCRA 123.)

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.(People v. Adam, 459 Phil. 676 (2003). 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.

June 15, 2011 People vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 187047, Convicted

violation of Sections 5 and 11,[6] Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

Jurisprudence clearly set the essential elements to be established in the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.  Succinctly, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummates the buy-bust transaction.[People v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504, 513 (2002).]  What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.[People v. Requiz, G.R. No. 130922, 19 November 1999, 318 SCRA 635, 647.]  In this case, the prosecution successfully established the aforesaid elements beyond moral certainty.

On the legality of appellant’s warrantless arrest, it bears stressing that he was arrested in an entrapment operation where he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu.  An arrest made after an entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court,[Teodosio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124346, 8 June 2004, 431 SCRA 194, 207.]

In People v. Sembrano[G.R. No. 185848, 16 August 2010, 628 SCRA 328, 341.] citing People v. Agulay,[G.R. No. 181747, 26 September 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 594.] this Court held that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which in recent years has been accepted as a valid and effective mode of apprehending drug pushers.  If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, as in this case, deserves judicial

30

sanction.[People v. Sembrano, supra note 34 at 341.]  Moreover, in a buy-bust operation, the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the same are not only authorized but also duty-bound to apprehend the violator and consequently search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime .[People v. Juatan, G.R. No. 104378, 20 August 1996, 260 SCRA 532, 538.] 

 Denial or frame up is a standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law.  As such, it has been viewed by the court with disfavor for it can just as easily be concocted.[People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 86 (2000).]  It should not accord a redoubtable sanctuary to a person accused of drug dealing unless the evidence of such frame up is clear and convincing.[People v. Lising, G.R. No. 125510, 21 July 1997, 275 SCRA 804, 811.]  Without proof of any intent on the part of the police officers to falsely impute appellant in the commission of a crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the principle that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect, deserve to prevail over the bare denials and self-serving claims of appellant that he had been framed up.[People v. Chua, G.R. No. 133789, 23 August 2001, 363 SCRA 562, 582-583.]  Neither can appellant’s claim of alleged extortion by the police operatives be entertained. Absent any proof, appellant’s assertion of extortion allegedly committed by the police officers could not be successfully interposed.  It remains one of those standard, worn-out, and impotent excuses of malefactors prosecuted for drug offenses.  What appellant could have done was to prove his allegation and not just casually air it.[People v. Chua, G.R. No. 133789, 23 August 2001, 363 SCRA 562, 582-583.]

 In this case, appellant failed to substantiate such defense.  Other than his self-serving allegation, no other evidence whether testimonial or documentary has been adduced by him to strengthen his claim.  No one was ever presented by the defense to corroborate the version of events proffered by the appellant.  Hence, appellant’s defense of bare denial or frame up is highly unacceptable. 

Granting arguendo that the marked money was not previously recorded in the police blotter, the same is not fatal to the prosecution’s case primarily because the poseur-buyer testified in regards to his transaction with the appellant coupled with the presentation of the drug seized from the latter. 

June 11, 2011 Ulep vs. People, G.R. No. 183849, Acquitted

aggravated illegal possession of shabu

The disparity in the testimonies of those witnesses is too serious to be simply brushed aside. Further, since custody and possession of the drugs usually change from the time they are seized to the time they are presented in court, it is indispensable that, if the drugs are already

31

in sealed plastic sachets, the police officer involved immediately place identifying marks on the cover.  If the drugs are not in a sealed container, the officer is to place them in a plastic container, seal the container, and put his marking on the cover.   In this way there is assurance that the drugs would reach the crime laboratory analyst in the same condition it was seized from the accused.[People v. Pajarin, G.R. No. 190640, January 12, 2011.]           This did not happen here.  None of the officers involved in the seizure marked the plastic sachets of alleged drugs.  The markings took place at the police station already and it is not clear who made them.  Tuzon testified that Labutong placed the markings; Labutong said that SPO2 Butay did it.  Prompt marking of the seized items is vital because it serves as the starting point in the custodial link and succeeding handlers of the specimens often use the marking as reference.[People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 357.]  Since the officers in this case could not even agree as to who made the required marking, then it would be difficult for the Court to rest easy that the specimens presented before the trial court were the same specimens seized from Ulep.  These lapses cast a serious doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.[People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001).]

The Court has recently held that drug enforcement agencies should continually train their officers and agents to observe the rules governing drug-related cases and transfer out those who would not.  Failure to observe these basic rules results not only in consequent acquittals but also in loss of precious time to futile exercise.[People v. Pajarin] 

June 8, 2011 People vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 185717 - Acquitted

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165

But where there are other pieces of evidence putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation, these irregularities take on more significance which are, well nigh, fatal to the prosecution. 

Putting in doubt the conduct of the buy-bust operation are the uncontroverted testimonies of Buencamino and Lepiten, which gave credence to accused-appellant’s denial and frame-up theory.  The Court is not unaware that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information from or even to harass civilians.[People v. Daria, Jr., G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 688, 709.]  This Court has been issuing cautionary warnings to trial courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.[Sales v. People, G.R. No. 182296, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 680, 686] 

 The defense of frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their

32

official duties.[Sales v. People, G.R. No. 182296, April 7, 2009, 584 SCRA 680, 686]  Nonetheless, such a defense may be given credence when there is sufficient evidence or proof making it to be very plausible or true.  We are of the view that accused-appellant’s defenses of denial and frame-up are credible given the circumstances of the case.  Indeed, jurisprudence has established that the defense of denial assumes significance only when the prosecution’s evidence is such that it does not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt,[People v. Mejia, G.R. No. 185723, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 356, 374.] as in the instant case.  At the very least, there is reasonable doubt that there was a buy-bust operation conducted and that accused-appellant sold the seized shabu.  After all, a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense.[Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 144026, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 593, 613; citing People v. Fronda , G.R. No. 130602, March 15, 2000, 328 SCRA 185, 194.]

Moreover, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the requisite chain of custody of the seized specimen.  “Chain of custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.[People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 179213, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 92, 101-102; People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762, 777.]  The CA found an unbroken chain of custody of the purportedly confiscated shabu specimen.  However, the records belie such conclusion.

It is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.[Sales v. People, supra note 28, at 688-689]  This, the prosecution failed to do.  The prosecution must offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody.[Catuiran v. People, G.R. No. 175647, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 567, 580.]

June 6, 2011 People vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 191266 - Convicted

violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165

The chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug was properly and clearly established; consequently, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug were properly preserved by the apprehending police officers

In cases of dangerous drugs, what is important and necessary is for the prosecution to prove with moral certainty “that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused [be] the same item recovered from his possession.”[Cacao v. People, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2010, 610 SCRA 636, 644-45.] 

 

33

In this case, it is undoubted that the witnesses for the prosecution clearly established such essential requirement.  Right after the buy-bust operation on October 15, 2004, accused-appellant and Marcos were immediately brought to the DAID-SOTG office.  And upon their arrival, PO2 Ruiz marked the specimens seized from accused-appellant with specific proper markings and turned them over to the investigator, who in turn referred them at once to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination.  The testimony of PO2 Ruiz clearly establishes this requirement.

June 6, 2011 People vs. ARNEL BENTACAN NAVARRETE, G.R. No.  185211 , acquitted

violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165

Owing to the built-in dangers of abuse that a buy-bust operation entails, the law prescribes specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, independently of the general procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.[People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 208.]

 The records of the case indicate that even the basics of the outlined procedure in the custody of seized drugs was not observed. 

Non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Sec. 21 of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002 is not, of course, always fatal as the law admits of exceptions. 

The apprehending team in the present case has not, however, shown any justifiable ground to exempt it from complying with the legal requirements.  To impose benediction on such shoddy police work, absent exempting circumstances, would only spawn further abuses. 

June 1, 2011 People vs. VILLAHERMOSA, G.R. No. 186465 - CONVICTED

violating Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

violation of Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was already consummated the moment appellant was found in possession of the said articles without the necessary license or prescription.  What is primordial is the proof of the illegal drugs and paraphernalia recovered from the petitioner.[Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, 463 Phil. 914, 926 (2003).] 

there is no requirement that prior surveillance should be conducted before a buy-bust operation can be undertaken.  Prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or a buy-bust operation, there being no fixed or textbook method for conducting one.[People v. Eugenio, 443 Phil. 411, 422-423 (2003).]  It is enough that the elements of the crime are proven by credible witnesses and other pieces of evidence.[id]

May 30, 2011 San Juan vs. People, G.R. No. 177191, Acquitted

violation of Section 5,[4] Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.

“Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean:  “to carry or convey from one place to another.”[People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 138929, October 2, 2001, 366 SCRA 471, 485.]  The essential element of the charge is the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to another.  In the present case, although petitioner and his co-accused were arrested inside a car, the car was not in transit when they were accosted.   From the facts found

34

by the RTC, that car was parked and stationary.   May 30, 2011 People vs. Alivio,

G.R. No. 177771, convicted

violating Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165

Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. Thus, we generally defer to the assessment on this point by the trial court as it had the opportunity to directly observe the witnesses, their demeanor, and their credibility on the witness stand.[11] Our independent examination of the records shows no compelling reason to depart from this rule. 

The defense failed to sufficiently prove the alleged familiarity of appellant Alivio with PO2 Laro.  The testimony of defense witness Atty. Fajardo failed to give out specific details on the dates and occasions when he supposedly talked to PO2 Laro in the presence of Alivio.[19] Moreover, the evidence also shows a time gap between Alivio’s employment with Atty. Fajardo (from 2000 to 2001) and the occurrence of the buy-bust operation (in 2003). As against these sketchy claims, PO2 Laro testified that Alivio failed to recognize him during the buy-bust operation.[20]

 In any event, in Gwyn Quinicot v. People,[G.R. No. 179700, June 22, 2009, 590 SCRA 458.] we held that it is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the buyer, but the agreement and acts constituting the sale and delivery of the illegal drugs, that is crucial in drug-related cases:What matters in drug related cases is not the existing familiarity between the seller and the buyer, but their agreement and the acts constituting the sale and delivery of the dangerous drug. Besides, drug pushers, especially small quantity or retail pushers, sell their prohibited wares to anyone who can pay for the same, be they strangers or not. It is of common knowledge that pushers, especially small-time dealers, peddle prohibited drugs in the open like any article of commerce. Drug pushers do no confine their nefarious trade to known customers and complete strangers are accommodated provided they have the money to pay.[22] [Citations omitted]

In ascertaining the identity of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia presented in court as the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items.

The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal

35

drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines the chain of custody rule in the following manner: 

 b. ‘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 [was] of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]

 In this case, although the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, we find that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team under the chain of custody rule.

The appellants merely denied the buy-bust sale and their possession of the shabu and the drug paraphernalia. They claimed that they were framed by the police who took their earnings and forcibly took them to the police station. In light of the positive and credible testimony and the concrete evidence showing the existence of the buy-bust operation, these defenses are unworthy of belief.  Dela Vega’s injuries alone cannot rebut the consistent evidence that the appellants were arrested pursuant to a buy-bust operation. We particularly note in this regard that the participating policemen denied that they previously knew the appellants and that they entertained ulterior or illicit motives to frame them.

April 11, 2011

People vs. Roble, G.R. No. 192188, acquitted

Section 5,[3] Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165

In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove all the elements of the crime with moral certainty.

A careful perusal of the testimony of PO2 Laurel readily reveals that there is serious doubt as to the identity of the seller.

Even more doubtful is the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug itself.  In prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, “[t]he existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction x x x.”[People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA

36

647, 654.] Thus, it must be established that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.]

Similarly, the prosecution failed to follow the requisites found in Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, which outlines the post-procedure in taking custody of seized drugs.

Even though non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR is excusable, such cannot be relied upon when there is lack of any acceptable justification for failure to do so.  In the instant case, no justifiable grounds were put forth by the prosecution for the procedural lapses.

Summing up all these circumstances, it behooves this Court not to blindingly accept the flagrantly wanting evidence of the prosecution. Undoubtedly, the prosecution failed to meet the required quantum of evidence sufficient to support a conviction, in which case, the constitutional presumption of innocence prevails. As we have held, “When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.”[51]

April 6, 2011 People vs. ALBERTO BACUS ALCUIZAR, G.R. No. 189980, Acquitted

illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165

The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved.  This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.  Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.[People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, 15 August 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 267 citing People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, 24 April 2009, 586 SCRA 647, 655-656.]   

 The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence.[People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, 15 October 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 218.]  In Lopez v.

37

People[G.R. No. 184037, 29 September 2009, 601 SCRA 316.] citing Catuiran v. People,[G.R. No. 175647, 8 May 2009, 587 SCRA 567.] this Court held that:

 It would include testimony about every link in the chain,

from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. Indeed, it is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.[Lopez v. People] 

The aforesaid step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft.[People v. Sanchez]

Adherence to the guidelines under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 relating to custody and disposition of confiscated or seized dangerous drugs accounts for a crucial link in the chain of custody rule.

Verily, the failure of the police officers to mark the dangerous drugs immediately after their seizure and the vague recollection of SPO1 Agadier concerning the custody of the drugs from the residence of appellant up to the time it was submitted to the crime laboratory constitute a huge and significant gap in the chain of custody which substantially affects the identity of the corpus delicti..

March 14, 2011

People vs. BAIDA SALAK y BANGKULAS,G.R. No. 181249, convicted

violation of Section 15,[4] Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659

Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as amended by Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990 reads:

            Subject: Amendment of Board Regulation No. 7, series of 1974, prescribing the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses, and articles specially designed for the use thereof.            x x x x

38

            SECTION 1. All prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses and  articles specially designed for the use thereof when unlawfully used or found in the possession of any person not authorized to have control and disposition of the same, or when found secreted or abandoned, shall be seized or confiscated by any national, provincial or local law enforcement agency.  Any apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and[/or] paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Thereafter the seized drugs and paraphernalia shall be immediately brought to a properly equipped government laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.            The apprehending team shall: (a) within forty-eight (48) hours from the seizure inform the Dangerous Drugs Board by telegram of said seizure, the nature and quantity thereof, and who has present custody of the same, and (b) submit to the Board a copy of the mission investigation report within fifteen (15) days from completion of the investigation.[As cited in People v. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805, April 27, 2004, 428 SCRA 51, 69 and People v. Magat, G.R. No. 179939, September 29, 2008, 567 SCRA 86, 95-96.]The records do not show that the NBI-STF team complied with the

aforementioned procedure. Nevertheless, such failure is insufficient ground to acquit appellant.

In People v. Gonzaga,[G.R. No. 184952, October 11, 2010.] wherein the very same issue was raised, we explained that:

While it appears that the buy-bust team failed to comply strictly with the procedure outlined above, the same does not overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty.  A violation of the regulation is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case since the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the

39

arresting officers’ inability to conform to the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board.

 Further, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[47]

Moreover, non-compliance with the said regulation is not fatal to the prosecution as it does not render appellant’s arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of herein appellant.[People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 645.]

It is also worthy to note that appellant never alleged that the drugs presented during the trial have been tampered with. Neither did appellant challenge the admissibility of the seized items when these were formally offered as evidence. In the course of the trial, the seized shabu were duly marked, made the subject of examination and cross-examination, and eventually offered as evidence, yet at no instance did the appellant manifest or even hint that there were lapses in the safekeeping of the seized items as to affect their admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value. It was only during her appeal that she raised the issue of non-compliance with the said regulation. Settled is the rule that objections to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[People v. Araneta, G.R. No. 191064, October 20, 2010, p. 13; and People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, June 16, 2010, 621 SCRA 73, 84, citing People v. Hernandez, supra note 47.]

It should also be noted that appellant failed to present evidence to show that the NBI-STF team was impelled by improper motives to testify against her. She merely gave the bare assertion that she was arrested by the NBI operatives to be used as leverage in pressuring her husband to divulge the whereabouts of alias Boy Life.

Finally, as to appellant’s argument that she should have been acquitted since the prosecution failed to present the buy-bust money used during the operation, again, the argument is without merit. Failure to present the buy-bust money is not indispensable in drug cases since it is merely corroborative evidence, and the absence thereof does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution provided the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court.  Neither law nor jurisprudence

40

requires the presentation of any money used in the buy-bust operation.[People v. Gonzaga, supra note 45 at 17.]

March 14, 2011

People vs. Soriaga, G.R. No.  191392, Convicted

Section 5, Article II, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165

First of all, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited or dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation of the corpus delicti as evidence.  The RTC and the CA both found the above elements to have been satisfactorily proved by the prosecution in the present case.

In the absence of any showing that substantial or relevant facts bearing on the elements of the crime have been misapplied or overlooked, the Court can only accord full credence to such factual assessment of the trial court which had the distinct advantage of observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses at the trial.[People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070, February 24, 2010.]

 Absent any proof of motive to falsely charge an accused of such a grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over his bare allegation.[People v. Rodante de Leon, supra note 8 at 136.]

On the issue of non-compliance with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs, the rule is that it does not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[People v. Jakar Mapan Le, G.R. No. 188976, June 29, 2010.] The requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) are not inflexible.  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."[13]

March 2, 2011

People vs. BERTHA PRESAS y TOLENTINO, G.R. No. 182525, convicted

Illegal possession, illegal sale of shabu

Assuming arguendo that there is no stipulation of facts, the non-presentation of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the prosecution’s case.  In People v. Quebral,[G.R. No. 185379, 27 November 2009, 606 SCRA 247.] this Court explained:

 The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. This means that proof beyond doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential.

 Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do with the

testimony of the laboratory analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that

41

the report of an official forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug enjoys the presumption of regularity in its preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44 of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court, entries in official records made in the performance of official duty are prima facie evidence of the facts they state.[Id. citing Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632; People v. Bandang, G.R. No. 151314, 3 June  2004, 430 SCRA 570, 586-587 citing People v. Chua Uy, 384 Phil. 70, 93-94 (2000).] 

The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, does not automatically render accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.  A proviso was added in the implementing rules 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.”  The same provision also states that it must still be shown that there exists justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.[People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, 17 October 2008,569 SCRA 879, 898-899.]

January 31, 2011

People vs. RUFINO VICENTE, JR. y CRUZ - Convicted

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165

Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 118, 133.]  Non-compliance with the procedural requirements under RA 9165 and its IRR relative to the custody, photographing, and drug-testing of the apprehended persons is not a serious flaw that can render void the seizures and custody of drugs in a buy-bust operation.[People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 304, 325.] We have thus emphasized that 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.”[People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, December 23, 2009, 609 SCRA 304, 325.]

 People v. Sultan[G.R. No. 187737, July 5, 2010.] explains further:    

In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act No. 9165 adequately reflects the desire of the law to excuse from the rigid tenor of Section 21 situations wherein slight infractions in methodology are present but the integrity and identity of the specimen remains intact.

42

Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[People v. Villamin, G.R. No. 175590, February 9, 2010, 612 SCRA 91,106.]  Oft-repeated is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary.[People v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 187070, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 556, 564.]  Absent any indication that the police officers were ill-motivated in testifying against the accused, full credence should be given to their testimonies.[People v. Gum-Oyen, G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009, 585 SCRA 668, 678.]

January 31, 2011

People vs. SEVILLANO DELOS REYES, G.R. No. 181039 - Acquitted

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

Considering the illegal drug’s unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise, there is a need to strictly comply with procedure in its seizure and custody. [People v. Kamad, G.R. No.174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 304-305.]  Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, provides such procedure.

Although there were elected public officials from the barangay who were present during the buy-bust operation, nothing in his testimony, nor in the facts stipulated by the parties shows that there was physical inventory of the seized items or that there was photographing thereof in the presence of appellant, his representative or counsel, a representative of media and the Department of Justice, as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

Of course, People v. Pringas[G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842.] teaches that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal. Mere failure to comply with Section 21 will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. But 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.[G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842.]  This function in buy-bust operations is performed by the chain of custody requirement which ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.  Hence, in a long line of cases, we have considered it fatal for the prosecution to fail to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from the accused.[People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 213. Citations omitted.] Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165 defines “chain of custody” as follows:

While this regulation took effect on October 18, 2002 (or 2 days after the alleged commission

43

of the crime charged), it is however useful in determining if the integrity of the evidence was preserved in the instant case.

Said gaps in the chain cannot be disregarded or overlooked by this Court. As held in the case of People v. Almorfe[G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 52, 61.]:

x x x Although Janet identified Exhibits “C-1,” “C-2” and “C-3” as the drugs seized from appellants which she claimed to have marked immediately after the bust, she did not disclose the name of the investigator to whom she turned them over. And there is no showing if that same investigator was the one who turned the drugs over to the forensic chemist, or if the forensic chemist whose name appears in the physical science report was the one who received them from that investigator, or where the drugs were kept for safekeeping after the chemical test was conducted up to the time they were presented in court.

It bears recalling that while the parties stipulated on the existence of the sachets, they did not stipulate with respect to their “source.”

People v. Sanchez teaches that the testimony of the forensic chemist which is stipulated upon merely covers the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and the result of the examination, but not the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left his possession. (Underscoring in the original omitted; emphasis supplied.)

With crucial portions of the chain of custody not clearly accounted for, reasonable doubt is created as to the origins of the shabu presented in court.  Lingering doubt exists whether the specimen seized from appellant was the specimen brought to the crime laboratory and eventually offered in court as evidence.

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot be availed of in this case to supply the missing links as the presumption is effectively negated by to the buy-bust team’s failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and to show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. As a general rule, the testimonies of the police officers who apprehended the accused are accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. But when the performance of their duties is tainted with failure to comply with the procedure and guidelines prescribed, the presumption is effectively destroyed.[People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010, 616 SCRA

44

652, 669.]January 31, 2011

People vs. EVANGELINE SOBANGEE y EDAÑO, G.R. No. 186120, convicted

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165

The inconsistencies referred to are inconsequential. What is important is that the prosecution was able to establish the key elements needed for a conviction.  In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[People v. Miguel, G.R. No. 180505, June 29, 2010.]

The defense opposes the verdict since the following details presented by the prosecution were inconsistent: the date of the buy-bust operation, the time the buy-bust team left their office, the stops made on the way to the target area, the location of the operatives during the buy-bust, where the seized items were marked, the denomination of the buy-bust money, the identity of the operative who informed accused-appellant of her constitutional rights, and the identity of the alleged confidential informant.

 These pieces of information, however, do not destroy the foundation that the

prosecution has built in proving accused-appellant’s culpability. These are but irrelevant inconsistencies that do not take away the credibility of the police officers who testified against accused-appellant.  Considering there were five (5) police officers who testified on the buy-bust operation, one can hardly expect their testimonies to be in perfect agreement.  As held in the past, it is perhaps too much to hope that different eyewitnesses shall give, at all times, testimonies that are in all fours with the realities on the ground.  Minor discrepancies in their testimonies are, in fact, to be expected; they neither vitiate the essential integrity of the evidence in its material entirety nor reflect adversely on the credibility of witnesses.[People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009, 607 SCRA 377, 386.]  For a successful appeal, the inconsistencies brought up should pertain to that crucial moment when the accused was caught selling shabu, not to peripheral matters.[People v. Razul, G.R. No. 146470, November 22, 2002, 392 SCRA 553, 571.]  Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence.[People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066, August 11, 2010.]

January 26, 2011

People vs. NENE QUIAMANLON y MALOG, Convicted

violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165

As established in PO3 Villamor’s testimony, a buy-bust operation took place.  Being the poseur-buyer, he positively identified the seller of a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance for a sum of PhP 500.  The seller turned out to be Quiamanlon. Further, aside from substantially corroborating PO3 Villamor’s testimony, the testimony of PO3 Magcalayo has shown that a subsequent laboratory examination on the contents of the confiscated plastic sachets confirmed that they are indeed methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.  

45

 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 of such possession.  Thus, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.[Buenaventura v. People, G.R. No. 171578, August 8, 2007, 529 SCRA 500, 513.]  In the instant case, Quiamanlon failed to discharge such burden.

  Indeed, in every prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the presentation in evidence of the seized drug, as an integral part of the corpus delicti, is most material.[People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668, 718.]  Thus, it is vital that the identity of the prohibited drug be proved with moral certainty.  The fact that the substance bought or seized during the buy-bust operation is the same item offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same degree of certitude.[People v. Cortez, G.R. No. 183819, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 743, 762.]  It is in this respect that the chain of custody requirement performs its function.  It ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[Id.; citing Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.]

Undeniably, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[People v. Cortez, supra note 42, at 763.] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 on the handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs is clear on this matter.

The custodial chain rule is not to be rigorously applied, provided “the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.”  Thus, the supposed procedural infirmities alleged by Quiamanlon with regard to the custody, photographing, inventory, and marking of the seized items do not, in any manner, affect the prosecution of the instant case and do not render her arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible.

 Moreover, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562; citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 595.]  In this case, Quiamanlon bears the burden to show that the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers and a presumption that they

46

properly discharged their duties.[Id]  Failing to discharge such burden, there can be no doubt that the drugs seized from Quiamanlon were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. Evidently, the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

January 26, 2011

People vs. JACQUILINE PAMBID y CORTEZ, G.R. No. 192237, convicted

violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165

Essentially, accused-appellant pegs almost all of her arguments on the fact that the police officers failed to properly mark, inventory, and photograph the prohibited items allegedly seized from her.  She argues that as a result of this failure, there is doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drugs and that there was a break in the chain of custody of the evidence.

 Such argument cannot prosper.

Evidently, the law itself lays down exceptions to its requirements. Thus, non-compliance with the above-mentioned requirements is not fatal. In fact, it has been ruled time and again that non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR does not make the items seized inadmissible.[People v. De Mesa, G.R. No. 188570, July 6, 2010; People v. Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, June 16, 2010.] What is imperative is “the preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.”[People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 636.]

January 26, 2011

People vs. Dela Rosa, GR No. 185166, - CONVICTED

Illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana in violation of Sec 5 and 11, Article II RA 9165

This Court has consistently pronounced that drug pushers sell their prohibited articles to any prospective customer, be he a stranger or not, in private, as well as in public places, even in the daytime.  Indeed, drug pushers have become increasingly daring, dangerous and, worse, openly defiant of the law.  Hence, 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 and the acts constituting sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs. [People v. Requiz, 376 Phil. 750, 759-760 (1999).]

In People v. Nicolas,[G.R. No. 170234, 8 February 2007, 515 SCRA 187, 197.] this Court held that the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense.  With more reason that a mere inconsistency thereof does not and will not affect the credibility of the prosecution witness so long as all the elements of the offense have been established with certainty.

That no test buy was conducted before the arrest is of no moment for there is no rigid or textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations.  For the same reason, the absence of evidence of a prior surveillance does not affect the regularity of a buy-bust operation, especially when, like in this case, the buy-bust team members were accompanied to the

47

scene by their informant.  The Court will not pretend to establish on a priori basis what detailed acts police authorities might credibly undertake and carry out in their entrapment operations.  The selection of appropriate and effective means of entrapping drug traffickers is best left to the discretion of police authorities. [People v. Zheng Bai Hui, 393 Phil. 68, 133 (2000).]

January 26, 2011

People vs. QUIAMANLON, G.R. No. 191198 - CONVICTED

violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165

Undeniably, a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[People v. Cortez,] What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.

Perusal of the provision of the IRR of RA 9165 (Section 21) readily reveals that the custodial chain rule is not to be rigorously applied, provided “the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.”

the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[People v. Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009, 604 SCRA 543, 562; citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 595.]

January 19, 2011

People vs. ERLINDA CAPUNO y TISON, G.R. No. 185715, Acquitted

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

The requirements of paragraph 1, Section 21 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 This procedure, however, was not shown to have been complied with by the members of the buy-bust team, and nothing on record suggests that they had extended reasonable efforts to comply with the said statutory requirement in handling the evidence.

It is clear that the apprehending team, upon confiscation of the drug, immediately brought the appellant and the seized specimen to the police station. No physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were taken in the presence of the appellant or her counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and an elective official. We stress that PO1 Antonio’s testimony was corroborated by another member of the apprehending team, PO1 Jiro, who narrated that after arresting the appellant, they brought her and the seized item to the police station. At no time during PO1 Jiro’s testimony did he even intimate that they inventoried or photographed the confiscated item. A review of jurisprudence, even prior to the passage of R.A. No. 9165, shows that this Court did not hesitate to strike down convictions for failure to follow the proper procedure for the custody of confiscated dangerous drugs. Prior to R.A. No. 9165, the Court applied the procedure required by Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, amending Board Regulation No. 7, Series of 1974.[See People v. Magat, G.R. No. 179939, September 29, 2008, 567 SCRA 86, 95.] Section 1 of this Regulation requires the apprehending team,

48

having initial custody and control of the seized drugs, to immediately inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused and/or his representatives, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

 The Court remained vigilant in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized drugs were observed after the passage of R.A. No. 9165. In People v. Lorenzo,[G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010.] we acquitted the accused for failure of the buy-bust team to photograph and inventory the seized items.  People v. Garcia[G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259.] likewise resulted in an acquittal because no physical inventory was ever  made,  and  no  photograph  of  the  seized items was taken  under  the  circumstances required  by  R.A. No. 9165. In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[G.R. No. 173804, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 497.] we also acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to conduct an inventory and to photograph the seized item, without justifiable grounds.

 The “Chain of Custody” Requirement

Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti - the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug. Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[People v. Sanchez, supra note 29, citing People v. Kimura, 428 SCRA 51 (2004) and Lopez v. People, 553 SCRA 619 (2008).]

In the present case, the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish the chain that would have shown that the shabu presented in court was the very same specimen seized from the appellant.

 Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official DutiesIn sustaining the appellant’s conviction, the CA also relied on the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. This presumption, it must be stressed, is not conclusive. It cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the presumption unavailable.[People v. Pagaduan, supra note 31.]  The presumption, in other words, obtains only when nothing in the records suggests that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. But where the official act in question is irregular on its face, as in this case, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.[Cariño v. People, G.R. No. 178757, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 388, 406.]

49

January 19, 2011

People vs. NELIDA DEQUINA Y DIMAPANAN, et. al., G.R. No. 177570, Convicted

Violations of Section 4, in relation to Section 21, paragraphs (e-l), (f), (m), and (o) of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659

In order to exonerate herself from criminal liability, Dequina contends that she transported the marijuana under the compulsion of an irresistible fear.  Jundoc and Jingabo, on the other hand, claim that they went along to accommodate Dequina, a trusted childhood friend.

 We are unconvinced.

 A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom.  Actus me invito factus non est meus actus.  An act done by me against my will is not my act.  The force contemplated must be so formidable as to reduce the actor to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will.   The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done.  A threat of future injury is not enough.  The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity for the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat.[19]   Here, Dequina’s version of events that culminated with her and Jundoc and Jingabo’s arrests on September 29, 1999 is implausible.  Equally far-fetched is Jundoc and Jingabo’s assertion of blind trust in Dequina and total ignorance of the transportation of marijuana. 

January 17, 2011

People vs. CARLO MAGNO AURE y ARNALDO and MELCHOR AUSTRIACO y AGUILA, G.R. No. 185163, convicted

violating Sections 5, 11, and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165

As shown in Bilason’s testimony, a buy-bust operation took place. Being the poseur-buyer, he positively identified accused-appellants as the sellers of a sachet containing a white crystalline substance for a sum of PhP 6,000.  The sachet was confiscated and marked with the initials “CAA” and was subsequently taken to the crime laboratory for examination, where a chemical analysis on its contents confirmed that the substance is indeed Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.  Moreover, the testimonies of the other members of the buy-bust team, PO3 Lagasca and MADAC operative Flores, substantially corroborated Bilason’s testimony.

 As regards the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 against accused-appellant Aure, We also find that the elements of the offense have been established by the evidence of the prosecution.

 In the instant case, a brown bag was found inside the car of accused-appellant Aure.  It yielded a plastic sachet of shabu weighing 86.23 grams wrapped in red wrapping paper, small plastic sachets, and an improvised plastic tooter.  Considering that during the sale to Bilason, it was from the same bag that accused-appellant Austriaco took the sachet of shabu, per order of accused-appellant Aure, the owner-possessor of said bag and its contents is no other than accused-appellant Aure, who has not shown any proof that he was duly authorized by law to

50

possess them or any evidence to rebut his animus possidendi of the shabu found in his car during the buy-bust operation.

January 12, 2011

People vs. LUIS PAJARIN y DELA CRUZ and      EFREN PALLAYA y TUVIERA, G.R. No. 190640, Acquiteed

violation of Section 5 in relation to Sections 26 and 11 (3) in relation to Section 13, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165

The Court has held in numerous cases that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure laid down in R.A. 9165 would not render void the seizure of the prohibited substance for as long as the apprehending officers give justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct[People v. Habana, G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010.] and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items had not been compromised.[People v. Daria, Jr., G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 688, 700, citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 595.]  

Here, the prosecution failed to show that the substances allegedly seized from the accused were the same substances presented in court to prove their guilt.  Usually, the seized article changes hands from the police officer who takes it from the accused, to the supervising officer at their station, to the messenger who brings them to the police crime laboratory, and then to the court where it is adduced as evidence.  Since custody and possession change over time, it has been held indispensable that the officer who seized the article places it in a plastic container unless it is already in one, seals it if yet unsealed, and puts his marking on the cover.  In this way there is assurance, upon inspection, that the substance reaches the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused.[People v. Habana] 

 Further, as a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should ordinarily testify that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; that he resealed it after examination of the content; and that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial.  In case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he took the precautionary steps mentioned.  Here, the record fails to show this. 

 It is a serious concern that quite often the failure of the police to observe the rules governing buy-bust operations results in acquittals.  Drug enforcement agencies should continually train their officers and agents to observe these rules and transfer out those who would not.   The prosecutors conducting preliminary investigation should not file in court drugs cases where the sworn statements of the police officers, the report of the chemical analyst, and the object evidence do not show compliance with the same.  And trial courts should order the case dismissed and the accused released from detention if on examination the supporting documents are wanting in this respect.  They should not waste their precious time to useless exercise where the police and the prosecution fail to observe the rule of law especially in so serious offenses. 

51

January 10, 2011

People vs. JAY LORENA y LABAG, G.R. No. 184954, Acquitted

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

Further, considering the illegal drug’s unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise, there is a need to comply strictly with procedure in its seizure and custody. [People v. Kamad, G.R. No.174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 304-305.] Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides such procedure:

            (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[.] (Emphasis supplied.)

Evident from the records of this case, however, is the fact that the members of the buy-bust team did not comply with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Nothing in the testimony of Solero, Commander of Task Force Ubash, would show that the procedure was complied with. He even admitted that he has not seen the inventory of the confiscated drugs allegedly prepared by the police officers and that he only read a little of R.A. No. 9165.

Nonetheless, People v. Pringas[G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828.] teaches that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal.  Its non-compliance will not automatically 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.[G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828.]  We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence.[People v. Pagaduan, supra note 13 at 10-11.]

Even so, for the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved.[People v. Almorfe, G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 52, 60, citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 212.] It must be shown that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same specimen

52

seized from the accused. This function is performed by the “chain of custody” requirement to erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs by establishing its movement from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist and finally to the court.[People v. Almorfe, id. at 60-61, citing Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619.] 

In this case, there was no compliance with the inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drug and marked money immediately after the buy-bust operation.  We have held that such non-compliance does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs.  There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s.[People v. Almorfe, supra note 19 at 59, citing Sec. 21(a), Art. II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165.]  While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.  Hence, every link must be accounted for.[Id. at 61-62, citing Malillin v. People, supra note 20 at 633.]

January 10, 2011

People vs. NG YIK BUN, KWOK WAI CHENG, CHANG CHAUN SHI,CHUA SHILOU HWAN, KAN SHUN MIN, and RAYMOND S. TAN, G.R. No. 180452

violating Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 6425

Evidently, the arresting police officers had probable cause to suspect that accused-appellants were loading and transporting contraband, more so when Hwan, upon being accosted, readily mentioned that they were loading shabu and pointed to Tan as their leader.  Thus, the arrest of accused-appellants––who were caught in flagrante delicto of possessing, and in the act of loading into a white L-300 van, shabu, a prohibited drug under RA 6425, as amended––is valid.

 Moreover, present in the instant case are all the elements of illegal possession of drugs:   (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 possesses the said drug.[People v. Sy, G.R. No. 147348, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 594, 604-605; citing Manalili v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113447, October 9, 1997, 280 SCRA 400, 418.]  Accused-appellants were positively identified in court as the individuals caught loading and possessing illegal drugs.  They were found to be in possession of prohibited drugs without proof that they were duly authorized by law to possess them.  Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is, therefore, a prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on the part of accused-appellants.[People v. Pagkalinawan, G.R. No. 184805, March 3, 2010.]  There is, thus, no merit to the argument of the defense that a warrant was needed to arrest accused-appellants.

 Accused-appellants were not able to show that there was any truth to their allegation of a

53

frame-up in rebutting the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.  They relied on mere denials, in contrast with the testimony of Capt. Ibon, who testified that he and his team saw accused-appellants loading plastic bags with a white crystalline substance into an L-300 van at the Villa Vicenta Resort.  Accused-appellants, except for Tan, claimed that they were ordered by the police officers to act like they were loading bags onto the van. Accused-appellant Tan told a different tale and claims he was arrested inside a restaurant.  But as the trial court found, the persons who could have corroborated their version of events were not presented in court.  The only witness presented by Tan, a tricycle driver whose testimony corroborated Tan’s alone, was not found by the trial court to be credible. 

 As no ill motive can be imputed to the prosecution’s witnesses, we uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and affirm the trial court’s finding that the police officers’ testimonies are deserving of full faith and credit.  Appellate courts generally will not disturb the trial court’s assessment of a witness’ credibility unless certain material facts and circumstances have been overlooked or arbitrarily disregarded.[People v. Gregorio, Jr., G.R. No. 174474, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 216, 227; citing People v. Abaño, G.R. No. 142728, January 23, 2002, 374 SCRA 431.]  We find no reason to deviate from this rule in the instant case.

54