DANGEROUS DRUGS CASES (PAGE 1)

G.R. No. 175590

February 9, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
FERNANDO VILLAMIN Y SAN JOSE ALIAS ANDOY, Accused-Appellant.
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated July 19, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00967,
affirming the Decision2 dated May 7, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 20, in Criminal
Case No. 2332-M-2002, finding accused-appellant Fernando Villamin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165.
The facts, as culled from the records, are the following:
Members of the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) of San Jose del Monte Police Station received a report from a civilian
informant and from the Barangay Captain of Barangay Gumaok, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan sometime during the first
week of August 2002, that a certain Fernando Villamin, alias "Andoy," was engaged in the sale ofshabu3 in that same
place. 4 Thus, a team composed of Senior Police Officer 2 (SPO2) Mario Llarinas, Eduardo Ocampo, a police aide, and a
civilian asset, was formed to conduct a test-buy operation of shabu from accused-appellant.5
A civilian asset of the DEU and Police Aide Eduardo Ocampo, on August 15, 2002, went to accused-appellant in order to
buy shabu. Accused-appellant informed them that he ran out of stock and asked them to return the following day. When
the civilian asset and Eduardo Ocampo returned the next day, accused-appellant informed them that the shabu was not
yet available and again suggested that they return the following day.6
On August 17, 2002, a team -- composed of SPO4 Abelardo Taruc; Police Officers 2 (PO2) Mario Llarinas and Nasser
Saiyadi; members of the DEU; and four (4) police aides, namely; Eduardo Ocampo, Jude Illana, Glendo Villamor, and
Jerson Bausa -- was then formed to conduct a buy-bust operation directed at accused-appellant.7The designated leader
and poseur-buyer was SPO4 Taruc.8 In connection therewith, SPO4 Taruc prepared twoP100.00 marked bills before the
buy-bust operation.9
The team then proceeded to Barangay Gumaok, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan at around 11:00 o'clock in the morning.
SPO4 Taruc and the civilian asset approached the house of accused-appellant, while the rest positioned themselves at
strategic locations near the house. The civilian asset introduced SPO4 Taruc to accused-appellant and told the latter that
SPO4 Taruc wanted to buy shabu worth P200.00. Accused-appellant responded, saying, "Meron na, meron
na."10 Afterwards, accused-appellant entered his house. When accused-appellant opened the door of the house, SPO4
Taruc noticed that there were several people sniffing shabu inside the same house. After a few minutes, accusedappellant came out of his house holding a small packet/plastic sachet. Accused-appelant approached SPO4 Taruc, and
the latter handed the former the two P100.00 marked bills. Thereafter, accused-appellant gave the plastic sachet he was
holding to SPO4 Taruc.11
SPO4 Taruc, after making sure that the content of the plastic sachet was indeed shabu, held the hands of accusedappellant and placed him under arrest. Accused-appellant was, thereafter, frisked and the marked money, along with six
more sachets of shabu, were seized from him. As a signal to the other members of the buy-bust operation team that the
transaction was already completed, SPO4 Taruc placed his hand on his head. Hence, the rest of the team hurried to
apprehend accused-appellant and the other people inside the house. However, the others scampered to different
directions.12 The police officers and their aides were able to apprehend only two women, namely: Alma Frial, accusedappellant's neighbor, and Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo, accused-appellant's live-in partner.13

Also recovered inside the house of accused-appellant were six other sachets of shabu and shabu paraphernalia.
Subsequently, accused-appellant, Alma Frial, and Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo, as well as the evidence recovered, were
brought to the police headquarters where the members of the buy-bust operation team also prepared their joint
affidavits.14
The seven (7) plastic sachets of shabu, including the one bought from accused-appellant during the buy-bust operation,
as well as the drug paraphernalia, were referred to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.15 Forensic
Chemist, PNP Inspector Nellson Sta. Maria, after conducting a series of tests to determine the contents of the gathered
pieces of evidence, came out with the following findings:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A - One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "AT-FV" containing 0.145 gram of white crystalline
substance.
xxx
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above stated specimens gave POSITIVE result to the test for the presence of
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride,16 a regulated drug.17
Resultantly, three separate Informations were filed charging accused-appellant, and the others who were caught during
the buy-bust operation, with violation of Secs. 5, 6 and 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165, which read, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2331-M-2002
The undersigned City Prosecutor accuses Fernando Villamin y San Jose alias Andoy of violation of Section 11, Art. II of
R.A. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of August, 2002, in San Jose del Monte City, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control six (6) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride having a total weight of 1,042 grams, which is a regulated
drug.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 2332-M-2002
The undersigned City Prosecutor accuses Fernando Villamin y San Jose alias Andoy of Violation of Section 5, Art. II of R.
A. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of August, 2002, in San Jose del Monte City, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver dispatch in transit and transport one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing .145 gram, which is a regulated drug.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 2333-M-2002

The undersigned City Prosecutor accuses Fernando Villamin y San Jose alias Andoy of Violation of Section 6, Art. II of R.
A. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of August, 2002, San Jose del Monte City, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously openly maintain his residence located at Brgy. Gumaok East, this City, as
drug den where drugs are administered/sold, dispensed and used.
Contrary to law.
On September 4, 2002, accused-appellant pleaded Not Guilty to all the charges against him. Thereafter, trial ensued.
The Prosecution presented the testimonies of Police Officer 3 (PO3) Nasser Saiyadi,18 SPO4 Abelardo Taruc,19SPO2 Mario
Llarina,20 and Police Aide Eduardo Ocampo21 who testified as to the facts earlier narrated.
The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of accused-appellant22 and his live-in partner, Joselyn
Patilano-Cabardo.23 According to accused-appellant, on August 17, 2002, around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, he was
having breakfast inside his house at Barangay Gumaok, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, when three persons entered his
house through the kitchen door. Alma Prial, one of the three persons, asked accused-appellant if she and her
companions could stay in his house because somebody was chasing them, and said that one of her companions was in
trouble. Accused-appellant refused the request of Alma for fear of being implicated in whatever trouble Alma and her
two companions were involved. Accused-appellant added that Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo, his live-in partner, overheard
the above conversation and told the former not to allow Alma Frial and her companions to stay in their house. Accusedappellant, in turn, told Alma Frial about the sentiments of his live-in partner.
Later on, as narrated by accused-appellant, somebody kicked the kitchen door of his house. Three men entered as the
door opened, with one of them saying, "Walang kikilos, dyan ka lang." The two other men immediately proceeded to
the room of accused-appellant and Cabardo. Accused-appellant was then asked, "Nasaan na yung mga kasama mo?" To
this he replied that nobody else was inside the house except he and his live-in partner. Upon realizing the commotion,
accused-appellant's live-in partner shouted, "Wala kayong karapatan na pumasok dito."
Meanwhile, somebody outside the house shouted, "Mayroong tao dito." Thereafter, four persons, one of them Alma
Frial, entered accused-appellant's house. One of the men who earlier barged inside the house of accused-appellant said,
"Sinungaling ka, ang sabi mo hindi nanggaling dito yang mga taong iyan." Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo tried to help
accused-appellant but another man said, "Isa ka pa, maingay ka, kasama ka rin." It was then that SPO4 Taruc ordered,
"Dalhin na ninyo iyan." However, Cabardo said, "Bakit ninyo kami dadalhin, wala naman kaming kasalanan?"
In short, accused-appellant denied that he was caught selling shabu, a denial which Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo
corroborated.
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 in
Criminal Case No. 2332-M-2002, but acquitted him of the other charges. The dispositive portion of the trial court's
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
(1) In Criminal Case No. 2332-M-2002, the Court finds accused Fernando Villamin y San Jose, guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R. A. 9165 and hereby sentences him to life
imprisonment. He is also ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,00.00);
(2) In Criminal Cases Nos. 2331-M-2002 and 2333-M-2002, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused Fernando Villamin y San Jose of the crimes charged and he is
therefore acquitted;

(3) For insufficiency of evidence, the Court hereby acquits accused Joselyn Patilano-Cabardo and Alma Frial y
Caluntod in Criminal Case No. 2334-M-2002.
The dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia submitted as evidence in these cases are hereby ordered to be transmitted
to the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB).
SO ORDERED.
Due to the penalty imposed, which is Life Imprisonment, the case was elevated to this Court on appeal. However, per
Resolution24 of this Court dated March 28, 2005, the case was transferred to the CA in conformity with the Decision of
this Court dated July 7, 2004 in People v. Mateo,25 modifying the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, particularly Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 122, Section 13 of Rule 124, Section 3 of Rule 125, and any other rule
insofar as it provides for direct appeals from the RTC to this Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment; as well as the resolution of this Court en banc,dated September 19, 1995, on Internal
Rules of the Supreme Court, in cases similarly involving the death penalty, pursuant to this Court's power to promulgate
rules of procedure in all courts under Article VIII, Section 5 of the Constitution, and allowing an intermediate review by
the CA before such cases are elevated to this Court.
The CA, in its Decision dated July 19, 2006, affirmed the conviction of accused-appellant. The dispositive portion reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit, and the assailed decision is
AFFIRMED and UPHELD in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Accused-appellant, in his Brief dated September 20, 2004, ascribes the following errors, to wit:
I
THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME
CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE COURT A-QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
Accused-appellant claims that he was not given the opportunity to know the reason for his arrest, as he was
immediately handcuffed by the arresting officers, making it appear that he was caught in flagrante selling shabu, which
is in contravention of his rights against unreasonable searches and seizures as embodied under the 1987 Philippine
Constitution. He further argues that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over
the constitutionally protected rights of an individual.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in its Brief, states the argument that:
THE PROSECUTION SATISFACTORILY PROVED THE GUILT OF APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
The OSG posits that the crime of drug pushing merely requires the consummation of the sale, whereby the pusher hands
over the drugs to the buyer in exchange for money, which the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. It
further contends that, accused-appellant's denial cannot prevail over his positive identification as a peddler of shabu. As
to the claim of accused-appellant that his arrest and the search made by the police officers were illegal, the OSG points

out that during his testimony, when asked if he ever protested his arrest during the time of the arrest itself, accusedappellant admitted that he merely informed the prosecutor about it, but did not file any written complaint or protest
against the arresting officers.1avvphi1
The appeal is devoid of any merit.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities 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 to
the prosecution for the 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.26
All of the above elements have been proven to be present in this case. The identities of the buyer and the seller, as well
as the object and the consideration, were properly and sufficiently proven by the prosecution. As testified to by SPO4
Taruc regarding the buy-bust operation conducted:
Q: Mr. Witness, you stated that you are presently assigned at the San Jose de Monte Police Station, will you
please tell before this Honorable Court what particular unit or division were you assigned?
A: At DEU, sir.
Q: Being assigned at the DEU of the San Jose del Monte Police Station, will you please tell before this Honorable
Court your specific duties as such?
A: I am the chief of that section, sir.
Q: Being the chief of the said section of the DEU, will you please tell before this Honorable Court your duties as
chief of the office?
A: To arrest drug pushers and drug users, sir.
Q: Do you rcall if you have reported for duty on August 17, 2002?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: At what time did you report for duty on said date?
A: At about 9:00 o'clock in the morning, sir.
Q: When you reported for duty, do you recall if there was unusual incident that transpired thereat?
A: When we were instructed to proceed to Gumaok East to conduct buy-bust operation, sir.
Q: Who instructed you to conduct buy-bust operation at Gumaok East, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan?
A: Our chief of police, sir.
Q: And who is your chief of police Mr. Witness, at that time?
A: P/Sr. Supt. Romeo R. Palisoc, sir.
Q: Who are your companions who were directed by P/Sr. Supt. Palisoc to conduct buy-bust operation at
Gumaok East, City of San Jose del Monte?

A: SPO2 Mario Llarinas, PO3 Nasser Saiyadi and the other members of our station, sir.
Q: What did you prepare if any prior to the actual buy-bust operation that took place at Gumaok East, San Jose
del Monte City, Bulacan?
A: The vehicle and our buy-bust money, sir.
Q: How much buy-bust money did you prepare?
A: Two hundred pesos (P200.00), sir.
Q: Will you please tell this Honorable Court your participation in the actual buy-bust operation?
A: As Poseur buyer, sir.
Q: According to you you were directed by your chief of office to conduct buy-bust operation in Gumaok, and
who is the person or the subject of the buy-bust to be conducted by you?
A: Fernando Villamin alias Andoy, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, I am showing to you two (2) one hundred peso bills which according to you utilized as the
buy-bust money, will you please go over the same and tell before this Honorable Court what relation if any
these two (2) one hundred peso bills?
A: This is it, sir.
Q: Why do you say that these are the same two (2) one hundred peso bills, what were your identifying mark if
any?
A: My initial, sir.
Q: Will you please point your initial which according to you you put there?
A: Here, sir. (witness pointed to the initial AT written on the collar of Manuel Roxas already marked as Exhibits
A-1 and B-1).27
From the above testimony, it is clear that the first element has been complied with: the poseur-buyer positively
identified the seller of shabu and the money used for the sale of the same. The second and crucial element,
which is the proof that a transaction indeed transpired between the buyer and the seller, was categorically
testified to by SPO4 Taruc, as follows:
Q: At what time did you actually proceed to Gumaok, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan to conduct buy-bust
operation against Fernando Villamin?
A: We arrived there at around 11:00 a. m., sir.
Q: When you reached the place at 11:00 o'clock in the morning, what transpired next if any?
A: When we arrived there, we saw Andoy and he met us and announced "meron na, meron na," sir.
Q: Mr. Witness let us clarify this matter, how many of you proceeded to the place?

A: Many, sir.
Q: According to you you acted as the poseur buyer, who acted as the back up?
A: Llarinas, Saiyadi and other DEU members, sir.
Q: Who are the DEU members?
A: Jerson Bausa, Eduardo Ocampo, Glendo Villamor and many others, sir.
Q: When you reached the place, being the poseur buyer what did you do?
A: We bought already, sir.
Q: How about your other companions?
A: They were from us, sir.
Q From where you are, how far were back up positioned themselves, if you know?
A: They were on the opposite side of the street and they were hidden, sir.
Q: According to you proceeded to the place, will you please describe the place?
A: It is a small house made of wood and hollow blocks, sir.
Q: Who owns the place?
A: Fernando Villamin, sir.
Q: What happened next after you proceeded to the house of Fernando Vilamin?
A: I already bought shabu from him, sir.
Q: Where did the transaction take place?
A: Near his house, sir.
Q: In front of the house?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Were you alone in buying the shabu?
A: I was with our civilian asset, sir.
Q So it is now very clear that you being the poseur buyer as well as your asset together with Fernando Villamin
were alone in the place?
A Yes, sir.
Q: What happened next thereafter?

A: When I said I am going to buy shabu, he readily gave me, sir.

Q: What happened next thereafter?
A: When I said I am going to buy shabu, he readily gave me, sir.
Q: What happened next thereafter?
A: He turned his back and went inside and get the shabu and came back carrying the shabu already, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness let us be specific, you stated he went inside, from where did he went inside?
A: Inside his house, sir.
xxx
Q: What happened next thereafter after Villamin went inside his house?
A: When Villamin entered his house and after we saw the persons using shabu, he went outside and handed the
shabu to me, sir.
Q: How about the two hundred (P200.00)?
A: I handed to him, sir.
Q: Which came first, the handing of shabu or the handing of the two hundred (P200.00)?
A: I first handed him the money and he handed to me the shabu, sir.
Q: How many pieces of shabu?
A: Only one (1), sir.
Q: I am showing to you one small plastic sachet and inside is another plastic sachet which states BB OPN and
Exhibit A, will you please go over the same and tell before this Honorable Court what relation if any that one
small plastic sachet?
A: This is what he handed me, sir. (witness referring to one small plastic sachet placed inside a bigger sachet
with marking BB OPN)
xxx
Q: After the accused handed to you the shabu which is the subject of the buy-bust, what happened next if any?
A: I held him by his hand and announced to him that I am arresting him for selling shabu, sir.28
As distinctly narrated above by the witness, a transaction indeed took place, which led to the arrest of the accusedappellant in flagrante. The other witnesses, members of the buy-bust operation team, corroborated the above
testimony of SPO4 Taruc.
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust
operation.29 It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve

credibility, are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and
unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better
position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and
manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained
by the Court of Appeals.30
Accused-appellant, during his testimony and in his Appellant's Brief, merely denied the charge against him. According to
him, he was just having breakfast when the members of the buy-bust team suddenly barged inside the house and
arrested him. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellants plain denial of the offenses
charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.31 Frame-up, like alibi, is generally
viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and
standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.32 For this claim to prosper, the
defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have
performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.33Unfortunately, the accused-appellant miserably failed to
present any evidence that the members of the buy-bust operation team did not properly perform their duty, or that the
entire operation was coupled with any improper motive.
As an added argument, the accused-appellant questions the legality of his arrest. He claims that he was not given the
opportunity to know the reason for his arrest, and that the arresting officers were not armed with any warrant for
arrest. This Court, however, finds the said argument to be preposterous. It must be remembered that the accusedappellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation, the main goal of which was to catch him in flagranteselling shabu,
and from the evidence for the prosecution, he was arrested while committing a crime -- peddling of illegal drugs, a
circumstance where warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court, which states that:
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense.
xxx
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. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without
anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense.34 If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal
safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction.35 Thus, from the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the
absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal.
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision dated July 19, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. R. CR. - H. C. No. 00967,
affirming the Decision dated May 7, 2003 of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 20 in Criminal Case No.
2332-M-2002, finding accused-appellant, Fernando Villamin y San Jose, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 175832

October 15, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
SALVADOR SANCHEZ y ESPIRITU, accused-appellant.
This case confronts us once more with the buy-bust of a prohibited drug and the procedural difficulties this type of
operation poses for the police as well as for the prosecution.
On appeal is the September 11, 2006 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01095. The CA
affirmed the April 14, 2005 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103, Quezon City, that found the accusedappellant Salvador Sanchez y Espiritu (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), meriting him the penalty of life
imprisonment.
ANTECEDENT FACTS
The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 under an
Information that states:
xxx
That on or about the 6th day of April 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to
sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell,
dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point zero two (0.02) grams of white
crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge.4 The prosecution presented its lone witness - SPO2 Levi Sevilla (SPO2
Sevilla) - in the trial on the merits that followed. The appellant and his witness, Nida Detera (Nida), took the stand for
the defense.
The RTC summarized the material points of the testimony of SPO2 Sevilla as follows:
x x x while he was on Station 3 duty at Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City on April 6, 2003 a confidential informant
arrived at around 4:30 noon and reported that there is a person who has been selling shabu. An entrapment team was
formed consisting of himself as poseur buyer, SPO1 Brigido An, PO3 Virgilio Bernardo, PO2 Manny Paulilis and PO1 Cecil
Collado. A pre-operational report was submitted of the undertaking. At 5:00 p.m., the team was dispatched to the target
area at the far end Lualhati Street, Manotok Subd., Baesa, Quezon City. PO Sevilla put his initial "LS" on the money
given to him to be used at the entrapment.5
At the place, which is a squatter's colony located at the edge or side of Lualhati St., PO Sevilla and his informant walked
towards the place pointed by the informant and met the drug pusher. The informant introduced PO Sevilla to the
pusher. The informant and the pusher talked for a while. Thereafter, PO Sevilla talked to the latter. He told him that he
badly needs shabu para pumayat. x x x PO Sevilla then gave the pusher P100.00 (the marked money) and in return the
pusher gave him a plastic sachet of shabu.6
After receiving the plastic sachet, PO Sevilla scratched his head as a pre-arranged signal to his colleagues who were
deployed nearby. Said other policemen rushed to the crime scene while PO Sevilla grabbed the right hand of the
accused and introduced himself as a cop. The accused was frisked and PO Sevilla recovered the P100.00 marked money
bill (Exh. G) in the right side pants pocket of the accused who was later brought to Station 3. PO Sevilla identified the
transparent plastic sachet on which he placed his initial "LS" and the initial "SS" of the accused (Exh. E).7

On cross examination, PO Sevilla reiterated his testimony adding that whenever he is tasked as a poseur buyer he always
gives as reason that he wanted to be thinner and drug pushers never questioned him about that. PO Sevilla, who was
wearing a crew cut in court said that when he bought shabu from the accused his hair style was different. It was his first
time to entrap at that place as a poseur buyer. Their marked Anfra van was parked along Quirino Highway, Quezon City
from where he and the informant walked to Lualhati Street for about 10 minutes as the target
scene was about 100 meters away. He reiterated that their Pre-op Report
was sent to PDEA and given a control number.8 [Italics and footnotes referring to the pertinent parts of the records
supplied]
The RTC dispensed with the testimony of Forensic Chemist John Paul Puentespina after the parties stipulated that "the
items allegedly confiscated from the accused were submitted to the crime laboratory for examination and the findings
were put into writing."9
In the hearing of December 4, 2003, the prosecution offered the following as exhibits:
Exhibit "A" - the request for laboratory examination of the specimen confiscated from the appellant;
Exhibit "B" - the Initial Laboratory Report prepared by Forensic Chemist Paul Jerome Puentespina;
Exhibit "C" - the Confirmatory or Final Chemistry Report No. D-366-03 prepared by Forensic Chemist Paul Jerome
Puentespina;
Exhibit "D" - sworn Certification to show that the Chemistry Report was subscribed and sworn to before an
Administering Officer;
Exhibits "E", "E-1" and "E-2" - the specimen taken from the appellant; the initials of Forensic Chemist Puentespina; and
the initials of the police officer who arrested the accused and who received the specimen in exchange for the buy bust
money, respectively;
Exhibit "F" - the brown envelope where the seized evidence was placed after it was examined by Forensic Chemist
Puentespina;
Exhibits "G" and "G-1" - the buy bust money and the initials written therein of the poseur buyer, respectively;
Exhibits "H" and "H-1" - the Joint Affidavit of the entrapment team and the signature therein by SPO2 Sevilla,
respectively.
The defense objected to Exhibits "E," "E-1," "E-2," "G" and "H," contending that the appellant "had nothing to do with
the specimen presented before the court," and that the confiscated specimen resulted from an illegal arrest. On Exhibit
"G," the defense argued that no evidence of powder was ever presented by the prosecution witness. The defense
likewise objected to the presentation of Exhibit "H" on the ground that its contents were self-serving.
The appellant gave a different version of the events in his testimony of January 30, 2005. He narrated that at around
5:25 in the afternoon of April 6, 2003, he was in his house putting his children to sleep when three (3) police officers
suddenly barged into his house, searched the premises, frisked him, and forced him to come with them.10 He recognized
one of the policemen as "Sir Levi," a former colleague of his uncle, Sonny Catiis, at the police station. The police officers
then handcuffed him and asked him to get into a police vehicle. He begged them and shouted, "Sir you already frisked
me in the house and you did not find anything, you might just plant evidence in my pocket, please do not do so." The
police brought him to Police Station 3, Talipapa, Quezon City, and placed him in a detention cell without an investigation
being conducted.11

While inside his cell, the police showed him a plastic sachet and said that it was the shabu taken from him. SPO2 Sevilla
asked him to call his uncle, but he refused to do so; he feared that his uncle would think that the confiscated shabu was
really taken from him.12
Nida testified that she was at the kitchen of the appellant's house doing the laundry between 2:00-3:00 in the afternoon
of April 6, 2003, when she heard loud knocks on the door. The appellant, who was in bed, stood up and opened the
door.13 A person entered, pushed the appellant backwards, and handcuffed him. This person then ordered the appellant
to sit down so he (the appellant) could be asked questions. A total of four persons, all male, entered the house.
Afterwards, the appellant and she were frisked; a lighter was taken from her, but nothing was seized from the
appellant.14
The RTC primarily considered the reputation of SPO2 Sevilla in giving weight to his testimony, and held that "PO Sevilla
has been a frequent witness in drugs cases and he has already established his credibility before this court." Its decision
of April 14, 2005 found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
It imposed on him the penalty of life imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine ofP50,000.00.
The appellant appealed to the CA, with the appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01095. In its decision of September
11, 2006, the CA affirmed the RTC decision.
In his brief15 on appeal, the appellant contends that the court a quo gravely erred in finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of R.A. No. 9165. He maintains that the courts order of conviction was merely based on
the good reputation SPO2 Sevilla has established with the court based on the many drug cases he had handled. The trial
court, too, wrongly interpreted the appellants appearance and demeanor because "his head was bowed and his eyes
were dreamy and sad."16
The defense harps, too, on the prosecutions failure to prove that the sachets allegedly recovered from the appellant
were the ones submitted to the forensic chemist for examination, as well as its failure to follow the proper chain of
custody in handling the seized evidence. It was only the arresting officer who testified that he confiscated the sachet
from the accused. The police officer who conducted the subsequent investigation and to whom the confiscated sachet
was allegedly turned over was not identified nor presented as witness. Hence the identity of the evidence presented
against the appellant is doubtful.17
The prosecution counters with the argument that the trial courts findings on the credibility of SPO2 Sevilla and the lack
of it with respect to the appellant and his witness Nida, should be given great weight and respect, as the trial court had
the chance and the prerogative to hear and appreciate these matters at the trial. SPO2 Sevilla described in a clear and
unwavering manner how the police team planned for and conducted the buy-bust operation, and how he marked the
plastic sachet of shabu he bought from appellant immediately after the latters arrest. Even the statement regarding the
credibility of SPO2 Sevilla, a frequent witness before the trial court in drug cases, does not mean that the trial court was
biased. If at all, it only meant that the trial court had known SPO2 Sevilla and had often observed his demeanor as a
witness.
The prosecution further argues that the evidence for the defense is incredible and doubtful judging from the testimonies
of the appellant and his witness Nida. While the appellant testified that his alleged unlawful arrest transpired at 5:25
p.m. of April 6, 2003, his witness Nida testified with certainty that she witnessed the arrest take place on the same date
between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. as she saw the time on the wall clock. Moreover, the appellant himself admitted that
he had no knowledge of any adverse reason or ill motive that would induce the arresting police officers to falsely
implicate him. To the prosecution, this lack of ill motive supports the view that SPO2 Sevilla testified to the truth and his
acts should enjoy the presumption of regularity.
As to the corpus delicti, the prosecution stresses that it fully proved that the item recovered from the appellant is
positive for shabu. The request for laboratory examination of the specimen confiscated from the appellant; the initial
laboratory report showing that the item bought and/or seized from appellant is positive for shabu; and the final
chemistry report were all formally offered in evidence, without any objection from the appellant. The defense, in fact,

agreed to stipulate on the contents and the veracity of the forensic examinations made relative to the item recovered
from the appellant. The corpus delicti having been proven and even admitted by the appellant, there was nothing more
for the prosecution to establish; it had proven beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, specifically - (a) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the
things sold and the payment therefor.
THE COURT'S RULING
After due consideration, we resolve to acquit the appellant for the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Non-observance of the
requirements of Section 21,
paragraph 1 of Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165
In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the laws own starting perspective on the status of the accused
in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable
doubt.18 Thus, while the charge was laid after a preliminary finding that a probable cause existed showing that a crime
had been committed and the accused was probably guilty thereof, the criminal trial itself starts with the substantive
presumption of the innocence on the part of the accused, rebuttable only by proof of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The burden of such proof rests with the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its case rather than on the
weakness of the case for the defense. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a
moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to
overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.19
To prove the legitimacy of the police buy-bust operation, the prosecution presented the following: (a) a pre-operation
report bearing Unit Control Number 0504-03-07 signed by the desk officer, police chief and team leader of the station
drug enforcement unit, which indicated the type, time and general area of operation, the type of vehicles and firearms
to be used, and the respective names of the team leader, poseur-buyer and members of the buy-bust team; (b) a
photocopy of the marked money; and (c) the joint affidavit of the entrapment team signed by the poseur-buyer, SPO2
Sevilla, and PO1 Collado. The operation yielded a plastic sachet containing shabu allegedly confiscated from the
appellant.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to apprehend prohibited drug law violators in
the act of committing a drug-related offense.20 Because of the built-in danger for abuse that a buy-bust operation
carries, it is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law
procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation21 and of the accused facing a criminal
charge22 are safeguarded. We expressed this concern in People v. Tan,23 when we recognized that "by the very nature of
anti-narcotic operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with
which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in the pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and
the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, the courts have been exhorted to
be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug
offenses."
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, which states:
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 ours]

This is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which reads:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: x x x Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. [Emphasis
supplied]
The records of the present case are bereft of evidence showing that the buy-bust team followed the outlined procedure
despite its mandatory terms, as indicated by the use of "shall" in its directives. The deficiency is patent from the
following exchanges at the trial:
FISCAL GIBSON ARAULA:
Q: Now after you received that shabu or transparent plastic sachet containing shabu and gave the P100.00 bill to the
accused, what happened next?
SPO2 LEVI SEVILLA:
A: After I received [sic] I scratched my head.
Q: What is the purpose?
A: Pre-arrange[d] signal.
Q: After that what happened?
A: They swooped down in the scene.
Q: What happened after that?
A: I grab [sic] his right hand.
Q: When you grabbed his right hand what did you tell him?
A: I introduced myself as Police Officer.
Q: Then after that what happened next?
A: I grabbed the accused and informed him of his constitutional right.
Q: After informing of his constitutional right what happened Mr. Witness?
A: We brought him to our station.
Q: How about the transparent plastic sachet, where is it?
A: It is in my possession.

Q: How about the buy-bust money in the amount of P100.00?

A: I recovered it from the right pants pocket.
Q: Now you said that you brought the accused to the Police Station, what happened to the Police Station?
A: We turn [sic] him over to the Desk Officer.
Q: What did you turn over?
A: The accused and the evidences, the plastic shabu sir.
Q: Before you turn over that plastic sachet Mr. Witness, what did you put there?
A: I put my initial and initial of the accused.
Q: If that transparent plastic sachet is shown to you, can you identify that Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Showing to you this plastic sachet Mr. Witness, what can you say to that transparent plastic sachet?
A: This was the one I purchased from the accused because I have here my initial and the initial of the accused, sir.
x x x x24 [Emphasis ours]
Other than the markings that SPO2 Sevilla alleged, it is clear that no physical inventory and no photograph of the seized
items were taken in the presence of the accused or his counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
Justice (DOJ), and an elective official. Based on the above testimony, SPO2 Sevilla - the prosecutions lone witness - also
did not mark the plastic sachet of shabu immediately upon seizure; it was only marked upon arrival at the police station.
Thus, other than the stipulation regarding the handling and results of the specimen at the forensic laboratory, SPO2
Sevillas testimony and the evidence he identified constitute the totality of the evidence for the prosecution on the
handling of the allegedly seized items.
We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be
possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, many of them far from ideal, and cannot at
all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence. The participation of a
representative from the DOJ, the media or an elected official alone can be problematic. For this reason, the last
sentence of the implementing rules provides 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." Thus, non-compliance with
the strict directive of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecutions case; police procedures in
the handling of confiscated evidence may still have some lapses, as in the present case. These lapses, however, must be
recognized and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence
seized must be shown to have been preserved.
In the present case, the prosecution apparently did not want to accept that the police had committed lapses in the
handling of the seized materials and thus did not bother to present any explanation to justify the non-observance of the
prescribed procedures. It likewise failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items adduced were not
tainted as the discussions below will show. The non-observance by the police of the required procedure cannot
therefore be excused.

The "chain of custody" over the

confiscated items was not proven
Under Section 5, Article II25 of R.A. No. 9165, the elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu
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. Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti - the body of the crime whose core is the
confiscated illicit drug.26
Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti:
every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established.27 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.28 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.29
Blacks Law Dictionary explains chain of custody in this wise:
In evidence, the one who offers real evidence, such as narcotics in a trial of drug case, must account for the custody of
the evidence from the moment in which it reaches his custody until the moment in which it is offered in evidence, and
such evidence goes to the weight not to admissibility of evidence.Com. V. White, 353 Mass. 409, 232 N.E.2d 335.
Likewise, Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 200230 which implements R.A. No. 9165
defines "chain of custody" as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals
or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and
custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized
item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as
evidence, and the final disposition.
Although this regulation took effect on October 18, 2002 (or after the commission of the crime charged), it is
nonetheless useful in illustrating how the process of preserving the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs
is ensured and maintained. That the police failed to approximate these safeguards and the prosecution failed to prove
the identity of the specimen allegedly seized and the specimen submitted as evidence during the trial is evident from
SPO2 Sevilla himself who testified as follows:
FISCAL GIBSON ARAULA:
Q: After informing [the accused] of his constitutional right what happened Mr. Witness?
SPO2 LEVI SEVILLA
A: We brought him to our station.
Q: How about the transparent plastic sachet, where is it?
A: It is in my possession.
Q: How about the buy-bust money in the amount of P100.00?
A: I recovered it from the right pants pocket.

Q: Now you said that you brought the accused to the Police Station, what happened to the Police Station?
A: We turn him over to the Desk Officer.
Q: What did you turn over?
A: The accused and the evidences, the plastic shabu sir.
Q: Before you turn over that plastic sachet Mr. Witness, what did you put there?
A: I put my initial and initial of the accused.
xxxx
Q: By the way Mr. Witness after you turned over to the investigator the plastic sachet, did you happen to know where
the investigator brought the plastic sachet?
A: I gave that plastic sachet first to the table of the Desk Officer and the Desk Officer gave it to the investigator.
FISCAL GIBSON ARAULA:
That would be all for the witness.
x x x x31
Significantly, this was the only testimony in the case that touched on the chain of custody of the seized evidence. It
failed to disclose the identities of the desk officer and the investigator to whom the custody of the drugs was given, and
how the latter handled these materials. No reference was ever made to the person who submitted the seized specimen
to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Likewise, no one testified on how the specimen was handled after the
chemical analysis by the forensic chemist. While we are aware that the RTC's Order of August 6, 2003 dispensed with the
testimony of the forensic chemist because of the stipulations of the parties, we view the stipulation to be confined to
the handling of the specimen at the forensic laboratory and to the analytical results obtained. The stipulation does not
cover the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left his
possession. To be sure, personnel within the police hierarchy (as SPO2 Sevillas testimony casually mentions) must have
handled the drugs but evidence of how this was done, i.e., how it was managed, stored, preserved, labeled and recorded
from the time of its seizure, to its receipt by the forensic laboratory, up until it was presented in court and subsequently
destroyed is absent from the evidence adduced during the trial. To repeat an earlier observation, even the time and
place of the initial marking of the alleged evidence are not at all certain as the testimony on this point varies.
The recent case of Lopez v. People32 is particularly instructive on how we expect the chain of custody or "movement" of
the seized evidence to be maintained and why this must be shown by evidence:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. 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.

While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an
unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is
not really identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to
observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility,
alteration or tampering without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not dictates the level of
strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. [Emphasis ours]
That the prosecution offered in evidence the request for laboratory examination (Exh. "A"), the initial laboratory report
(Exh. "B"), and final Chemistry Report No. D-366-03 (Exh. "C"), to which the defense did not object, has no bearing on
the question of whether the specimen submitted for chemical analysis and subsequently presented in court was the
same as that seized from the appellant. All that these exhibits proved were the existence andauthenticity of the
request for laboratory examination and the results of this examination, not the required chain of custody from the time
of seizure of the evidence. Evidently, the prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt the indispensable
element of corpus delicti of the crime.
In People v. Orteza,33 the Court had the occasion to discuss the implications of the failure to comply with Section 21,
paragraph 1, to wit:
In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the
apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations
produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to
establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
The Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura, where the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the seized
marijuana at the time the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug.
More recently, in Zarraga v. People, the Court 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. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show
the identity of the shabu. [Emphasis supplied]
We reached the same conclusion in People v. Nazareno34 and People v. Santos,35 where we again stressed the
importance of complying with the prescribed procedure.
Physical inventory and photograph
requirement under Section 21
vis-a-vis "marking" of seized evidence
While the first sentence of Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 states that "the
apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same," the second sentence makes a distinction between
warrantless seizures and seizures by virtue of a warrant, thus:
(a) x x x Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items. [Emphasis supplied]
Thus, the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items differ and depend on whether the
seizure was made by virtue of a search warrant or through a warrantless seizure such as a buy-bust operation.

In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place where
the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in case of warrantless seizures such as a buy- bust operation, the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable; however, nothing prevents the apprehending officer/team from immediately
conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at the place where they were seized, as it is more in
keeping with the laws intent of preserving their integrity and evidentiary value.
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of "marking" of the
seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence
subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the
place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires 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 (2) immediately upon confiscation. This 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 under Section 2936 and on allegations of robbery or theft.37
For greater specificity, "marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials
and signature on the item/s seized. If the physical inventory and photograph are made at the nearest police station or
office as allowed by the rules,38 the inventory and photography of the seized items must bemade in accordance with Sec.
2 of Board Resolution No. 1, Series of 2002,39 but in every case, the apprehended violator or counsel must be
present. Again, this is in keeping with the desired level of integrity that the handling process requires. Thereafter, the
seized items shall be placed in an envelope or an evidence bag unless the type and quantity of the seized items require a
different type of handling and/or container. The evidence bag or container shall accordingly be signed by the handling
officer and turned over to the next officer in the chain of custody.
Conclusion
The evidentiary gap in identifying the specimen that the forensic laboratory analyzed brings us back to where we started
in analyzing the case to the presumption of innocence that the Constitution accords the appellant. To reiterate,
starting from this point, the prosecution must proceed to establish the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. To do this, the prosecution presented its lone witness, SPO2 Sevilla, whom the lower court believed because the
witness had testified before the court before. Thus, rather than look at the merits of his testimony, the lower court
simply considered his person and past performance, and decided on this basis that he was a credible witness. This, by
itself, is a major error a violation of due process on the part of the lower court that the appellate court apparently
did not fully appreciate. A court must always decide on the basis of the evidence presented, not on the basis of any
other extraneous consideration not before the court.
The court apparently banked also on the presumption of regularity in the performance that a police officer like SPO2
Sevilla enjoys in the absence of any taint of irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to falsify his testimony.
Admittedly, the defense did not adduce any evidence showing that SPO2 Sevilla had any motive to falsify. The regularity
of the performance of his duties, however, leaves much to be desired given the lapses in his handling of the allegedly
confiscated drugs as heretofore shown.
An effect of this lapse, as we held in Lopez v. People,40 is to negate the presumption that official duties have been
regularly performed by the police officers. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the
presumption unavailable. There can be no ifs and buts regarding this consequence considering the effect of the
evidentiary presumption of regularity on the constitutional presumption of innocence.
People v. Santos41 instructively tells us that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by
itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.42 InPeople v. Caete,43 we
also said:

While the Court is mindful that the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties,
this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot, by
itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duty cannot be used as basis for affirming accused-appellants conviction because "First, the presumption is precisely
just that a mere presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, xxx [it] cannot be regarded as binding
truth. Second, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate over the
presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt." The presumption also
cannot prevail over positive averments concerning violations of the constitutional rights of the accused. In short, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence
nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Without the presumption of regularity, the evidentiary gap in identifying the seized evidence from its turnover by
the poseur-buyer, its handling and custody, until its turnover to the forensic laboratory for analysis, stands out in bold
relief. This gap renders the case for the prosecution less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
From the perspective of the defense, we cannot help but note that the evidence for the defense is far from strong; the
appellant merely denied that a buy-bust operation took place and claimed that the evidence against him was a planted
evidence. In this jurisdiction, the defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed with disfavor for it can easily
be concocted and is a common defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.44 Likewise,
the testimony of the other defense witness, Nida, fails to fully corroborate the appellant's testimony due to
inconsistencies in their respective statements. These weaknesses, however, do not add any strength nor can they help
the prosecutions cause. If the prosecution cannot establish, in the first place, the appellants guilt beyond reasonable
doubt, the need for the defense to adduce evidence in its behalf in fact never arises. Thus, however weak the defense
evidence might be, the prosecutions whole case still falls. To hark back to the well-entrenched dictum in criminal and
constitution law: the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the defense. Thus, we return to the conclusion that we should acquit the accused for
failure of the prosecution due the gap-induced weaknesses of its case to prove the appellants guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the September 11, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 01095 affirming the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103, Quezon City is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Salvador Sanchez y Espiritu is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and is
ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to this Court the action
taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No 191726

February 06, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
NOEL BARTOLOME y BAJO, Accused-Appellant.
A buy-bust operation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of entrapment of the culprit. It is
distinct from instigation, in that the accused who is otherwise not predisposed to commit the crime is enticed or lured or
talked into committing the crime. While entrapment is legal, instigation is not.
This final appeal is taken by the accused from the decision promulgated on January 29, 20 I 0,1 whereby the Court of
Appeals (CA) affirmed his conviction for illegal sale of methampethamine hydrochloride or shabu in violation of Section
5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) handed down by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 120, in Caloocan City (RTC) through its decision dated July 12, 20062
Antecedents
On August 13, 2003, the City Prosecutors Office of Caloocan City charged the accused with illegally selling
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165 through the
information reading thus:
That on or about the 10th day of August 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously sell and deliver to PO1 Borban Paras, who posed as poseur buyer, one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing 0.06 gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), knowing the same to be dangerous drug.
Contrary to Law.3
After the accused pleaded not guilty, trial ensued.
The evidence for the State was as follows.
On August 10, 2003, at around 1:00 a.m., an informant went to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Unit (ADSOU) in
Caloocan City to report the illicit drug dealings of the accused on Reparo Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. Acting on
the report, Police Inspector Cesar Cruz of ADSOU immediately instructed some of his men to conduct a buy-bust
operation against the accused. During the pre-operation briefing, the buy-bust team designated PO1 Borban Paras as
the poseur-buyer. Paras was given a P100.00 bill that he marked with his initials BP. It was agreed that the informant
would drop a cigarette butt in front of the suspect to identify him to Paras; and that Paras would scratch his head to
signal to the buy-bust team that the transaction with the suspect had been consummated. The operation was
coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Upon arriving at the target area at around 2:00 a.m. of August 10, 2003, the team members positioned themselves in
the vicinity of a store. The informant then approached a person who was standing in front of the store and dropped a
cigarette butt in front of the person. Paras, then only two meters away from the informant, saw the dropping of the
cigarette butt. Paras went towards the suspect and said to him: Pre pa-iskor nga. The suspect responded: Pre, piso na
lang tong hawak magkano ba kukunin mo? Paras replied: Ayos na yan, piso lang naman talaga ang kukunin ko, after
which he handed the marked 100.00 bill to the suspect, who in turn drew out a plastic sachet containing white
substances from his pocket and gave the sachet to Paras. With that, Paras scratched his head to signal the
consummation of the sale. As the other members of the team were approaching, Paras grabbed the suspect. PO3
Rodrigo Antonio, another member of the team, confiscated the marked 100.00 bill from the suspect, who was
identified as Noel Bartolome y Bajo. Paras immediately marked the sachet at the crime scene with Bartolomes
initials NBB.4

Insp. Cruz later requested in writing the PNP Crime Laboratory in Caloocan City to conduct a laboratory examination of
the contents of the plastic sachet seized from Bartolome.5 PO2 Rolando De Ocampo, another member of the buy-bust
team, brought the request and the sachet and its contents to the laboratory. In due course, Forensic Chemical Officer
Jesse Abadilla Dela Rosa of the PNP Crime Laboratory confirmed in Physical Science Report No. D-1038-03 that the
plastic sachet contained 0.06 gram of methamphetamine hydrocholoride or shabu, a dangerous drug.6
On his part, the accused claimed that the arresting officers had framed him up because they wanted to extort a
substantial amount from him in exchange for his release. The version of the accused tended to show the following.
On August 9, 2003, at about 12:00 in the afternoon, the accused went to his brothers house located on Zapote Street,
Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City, to take a rest from his work as a construction worker. While he and his brother were
watching the television show Eat Bulaga inside the house, two policemen suddenly entered the house. One of the
policemen, whom the accused later identified as PO3 Antonio, frisked the accused but spared his brother because the
latter was asthmatic. The policemen then brought the accused to the police station and detained him. At the police
station, PO3 Antonio inquired from the accused if he was selling shabu, but the accused denied doing so. It was then
that PO3 Antonio demanded 20,000.00 from the accused in exchange for his freedom. The accused refused to pay
because he did not have the money.7
Ruling of the RTC
As stated, the RTC convicted Bartolome of the crime charged,8 to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds and so holds that accused NOEL BARTOLOME Y BAJO is GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and imposes upon him the penalty
of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).
The one (1) piece of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.06 gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the accused assailed his conviction, stating:
I
ASSUMING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT PARTICIPATED IN THE SELLING OF ILLEGAL DRUGS, THE TRIAL
COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING HIM OF THE CRIME CHARGED SINCE HE WAS MERELY INSTIGATED BY
THE POLICE INTO DOING IT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE POLICES FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE
PROCEDURE IN THE CUSTODY OF SEIZED PROHIBITED AND REGULATED DRUGS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 WHICH CASTS SERIOUS DOUBT ON THE
IDENTITY OF THE SEIZED DRUG CONSTITUTING THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE OFFENSE.
The accused argued that the operation mounted against him was not an entrapment but an instigation, contending that
without the proposal and instigation made by poseur buyer Paras no transaction would have transpired between them;
that the police team did not show that its members had conducted any prior surveillance of him; and that the
Prosecution should have presented the informant as a witness against him.

On January 29, 2010, the CA promulgated its assailed decision,9 rejecting the assigned errors of the accused, and
affirmed his conviction. It held that the operation against him was not an instigation but an entrapment, considering
that the criminal intent to sell dangerous drugs had originated from him, as borne out by the shabubeing inside his
pocket prior to the transaction with Paras; that the accused did not show that Paras had any ill motive to falsely testify
against him; that the conduct of a prior surveillance and the presentation of the informant as a witness were not
necessary to establish the validity of the entrapment; and that the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with the
requirements under Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations for Republic Act No. 9165 (IRR) was not fatal
because there was a justifiable ground for it, and because the apprehending team properly preserved the integrity and
evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs.
Hence, the accused is now before the Court in a final bid for acquittal.
Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
To establish the crime of illegal sale of shabu, the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing
sold and of the payment for the thing. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu,
requires simply the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug
from the seller. In short, what is material is the proof showing that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of the thing sold as evidence of the corpus delicti. If a police officer goes through the
operation as a buyer, the crime is consummated when the police officer makes an offer to buy that is accepted by the
accused, and there is an ensuing exchange between them involving the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police
officer.10
The concurrence of the foregoing elements was conclusively established herein.
To start with, Paras, as the poseur-buyer, testified that the accused sold to him shabu during the buy-bust operation, to
wit:
Q So when the informant proceeded to the place of Noel Bartolome, what did the informant do?
A After he threw cigarette in front of Noel Bartolome, I approached him.
xxxx
Q What happened next?
A When I approached the accused, I told him.
"Pre-paiskor nga" and he said
"Pre, piso na lang tong hawak ko
Magkano ba ang kukunin mo" and he said
"ayos nay an, piso lang naman talaga ang kukunin ko."
Q Who handed first you or the accused?
A I was the one who handed the buy bust money.

Q After giving him the P100.00 pesos to Noel Bartolome where did he place it?
A Then after that he placed it on his front pocket and then after that he got one (1) plastic sachet from his left front
pocket.
Q And then after giving you the plastic sachet containing illegal drug, what did you do?
A I scratched my head, sir.
Q After scratching your head, what transpired if any?
A When I saw my companions approaching me, I grabbed Noel Bartolome, sir.11
Secondly, the transmission of the plastic sachet and its contents from the time of their seizure until they were delivered
to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical examination was properly documented, starting with the marking of the
plastic sachet at the crime scene by Paras. This was followed by the preparation of the written request by Insp. Cruz at
the ADSOU. PO2 De Ocampo then personally brought the plastic sachet and its contents, together with the written
request, to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where the delivery of the request and of the sachet and its contents was recorded
by SPO1 Bugabuga of that office. In Physical Sciences Report No. D-1038-03, Chemist Dela Rosa of the PNP Crime
Laboratory ultimately certified that the contents of the plastic sachet were examined and found to be 0.06 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.12
And, thirdly, the Prosecution presented the shabu, the marked P100.00 bill, and Chemist Dela Rosas Physical Sciences
Report No. D-1038-03 at the trial.13
On the other hand, the accuseds claim of being the victim of a vicious frame-up and extortion is unworthy of serious
consideration. The fact that frame-up and extortion could be easily concocted renders such defenses hard to believe.
Thus, although drug-related violators have commonly tendered such defenses to fend off or refute valid prosecutions of
their drug-related violations, the Court has required that such defenses, to be credited at all, must be established with
clear and convincing evidence.14 But the accused did not adduce such evidence here, for all he put up were self-serving
denials. Had the version of the Defense been what really transpired, there was no reason for the accused and his
brother not to have formally charged the police officers with the severely penalized offense of planting of evidence
under Section 2915 of Republic Act No. 9165 and extortion. Thereby, the allegations of frame-up and extortion were
rendered implausible.
Yet, the accused discredits the validity of his arrest by contending that the arrest resulted from an instigation, not from a
legitimate entrapment. He insists that the evidence of the Prosecution did not show him to be then looking for buyers
of shabu when Paras and the informant approached him; that it was Paras who proposed to buy shabufrom him; and
that consequently Paras instigated him to sell shabu. He submits that the transaction would not have transpired without
the proposal and instigation by Paras; that Paras initiated the commission of the crime by offering to him P100.00 for
the purchase of the shabu; and that he should be acquitted due to the absolutory cause of instigation.16
The Court is not persuaded to side with the accused.
The trial judge and the CA agreed in their findings on the arrest of the accused being the result of a legitimate
entrapment procedure. Such findings were based on the credible testimonies of the poseur buyer and other competent
witnesses of the Prosecution. We concur with their findings. Indeed, the trial judges assessment of the credibility of the
witnesses is entitled to respect. This is because of the trial judges unique opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses as they testified before him.17 The rule applies even more if, like here, the trial judges assessment was
affirmed by the CA upon review.18 This rule should be obeyed here.
Moreover, we find no glaring errors or misapprehension of facts committed by the RTC in not according credence to the
version of the accused and his brother. In this regard, it is significant that the accused did not ascribe any ill motive to

Paras that could have made the officer testify falsely against him. Considering that the records were patently bereft of
any indicium of ill motive or of any distorted sense of duty on the part of the apprehending team, particularly Paras as
the poseur buyer, full credence was properly accorded to the Prosecutions evidence incriminating the accused. Without
the clear and convincing indication of the lawmens ill motive and irregular performance of duty, it is always good law to
presume them to have performed their official duties in a regular manner.19 That presumption became conclusive for
lack of contravention.
To be clear, then, the insistence by the accused that he was entitled to the benefit of an absolutory cause as the result of
an instigation is unwarranted.
There is a definite distinction between instigation and entrapment. The Court highlighted the distinction in People v.
Bayani, 20 viz:
Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute
him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or
capturing a lawbreaker. Thus, in instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused
into committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of committing. But in
entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the accused, and law
enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes; thus, the
accused cannot justify his or her conduct. In instigation, where law enforcers act as co-principals, the accused will have
to be acquitted. But entrapment cannot bar prosecution and conviction. As has been said, instigation is a "trap for the
unwary innocent," while entrapment is a "trap for the unwary criminal."
As a general rule, a buy-bust operation, considered as a form of entrapment, is a valid means of arresting violators of
Republic Act No. 9165. It is an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buybust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to
commit the offense.
A police officers act of soliciting drugs from the accused during a buy-bust operation, or what is known as a "decoy
solicitation," is not prohibited by law and does not render invalid the buy-bust operations. The sale of contraband is a
kind of offense habitually committed, and the solicitation simply furnishes evidence of the criminals course of conduct.
In People v. Sta. Maria, the Court clarified that a "decoy solicitation" is not tantamount to inducement or instigation:
It is no defense to the perpetrator of a crime that facilities for its commission were purposely placed in his way, or that
the criminal act was done at the "decoy solicitation" of persons seeking to expose the criminal, or that detectives
feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisting its commission. Especially is this true in that class of
cases where the office is one habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnishes evidence of a course of
conduct.
As here, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the informant utilized by the police merely furnishes evidence of a
course of conduct. The police received an intelligence report that appellant has been habitually dealing in illegal drugs.
They duly acted on it by utilizing an informant to effect a drug transaction with appellant. There was no showing that the
informant induced the appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.
Conversely, the law deplores instigation or inducement, which occurs when the police or its agent devises the idea of
committing the crime and lures the accused into executing the offense. Instigation absolves the accused of any guilt,
given the spontaneous moral revulsion from using the powers of government to beguile innocent but ductile persons
into lapses that they might otherwise resist.
People v. Doria enumerated the instances when this Court recognized instigation as a valid defense, and an instance
when it was not applicable:

In United States v. Phelps, we acquitted the accused from the offense of smoking opium after finding that the
government employee, a BIR personnel, actually induced him to commit the crime in order to persecute him. Smith, the
BIR agent, testified that Phelps apprehension came after he overheard Phelps in a saloon say that he like smoking
opium on some occasions. Smiths testimony was disregarded. We accorded significance to the fact that it was Smith
who went to the accused three times to convince him to look for an opium den where both of them could smoke this
drug. The conduct of the BIR agent was condemned as "most reprehensible." In People v. Abella, we acquitted the
accused of the crime of selling explosives after examining the testimony of the apprehending police officer who
pretended to be a merchant. The police officer offered "a tempting price, xxx a very high one" causing the accused to
sell the explosives. We found there was inducement, "direct, persistent and effective" by the police officer and that
outside of his testimony, there was no evidence sufficient to convict the accused. In People v. Lua Chu and Uy Se Tieng,
[W]e convicted the accused after finding that there was no inducement on the part of the law enforcement officer. We
stated that the Customs secret serviceman smoothed the way for the introduction of opium from Hong Kong to Cebu
after the accused had already planned its importation and ordered said drug. We ruled that the apprehending officer did
not induce the accused to import opium but merely entrapped him by pretending to have an understanding with the
Collector of Customs of Cebu to better assure the seizure of the prohibited drug and the arrest of the surreptitious
importers.
In recent years, it has become common practice for law enforcement officers and agents to engage in buy-bust
operations and other entrapment procedures in apprehending drug offenders, which is made difficult by the secrecy
with which drug-related offenses are conducted and the many devices and subterfuges employed by offenders to avoid
detection. On the other hand, the Court has taken judicial notice of the ugly reality that in cases involving illegal drugs,
corrupt law enforcers have been known to prey upon weak, hapless and innocent persons. The distinction between
entrapment and instigation has proven to be crucial. The balance needs to be struck between the individual rights and
the presumption of innocence on one hand, and ensuring the arrest of those engaged in the illegal traffic of narcotics on
the other.
Applying the foregoing, we declare that the accused was not arrested following an instigation for him to commit the
crime. Instead, he was caught in flagrante delicto during an entrapment through buy-bust. In a buy-bust operation, the
pusher sells the contraband to another posing as a buyer; once the transaction is consummated, the pusher is validly
arrested because he is committing or has just committed a crime in the presence of the buyer. Here, Paras asked the
accused if he could buy shabu, and the latter, in turn, quickly transacted with the former, receiving the marked bill from
Paras and turning over the sachet of shabu he took from his pocket. The accused was shown to have been ready to sell
the shabu without much prodding from Paras. There is no question that the idea to commit the crime originated from
the mind of the accused.
The accused argues that the absence of a prior surveillance cast doubt on the veracity of the buy-bust operation; and
that the failure to present the informant as a witness against him, as well as the buy-bust teams failure to comply with
the requirements under Section 21, Article II, of Republic Act No.9165, were fatal to the cause of the Prosecution.21
The argument of the accused lacks merit. We have held that prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust
operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by the informant.22 That was
what precisely happened here.
Similarly, the presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution
of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule, the informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need to
protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts. Thereby, the confidentiality of the
informants identity is protected in deference to his invaluable services to law enforcement.23 Only when the testimony
of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect
his security be disregarded. Here, however, the informants testimony as a witness against the accused would only be
corroborative of the sufficient testimony of Paras as the poseur-buyer; hence, such testimony was unnecessary.24
We consider as unwarranted the contention of the accused about the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with the
requirements of the law for the proper seizure and custody of dangerous drugs.

The requirements are imposed by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, whose pertinent portion
reads as follows:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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;
xxxx
To implement the requirements of Republic Act No. 9165, Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR relevantly states:
xxxx
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items;
xxxx
It is notable that pursuant to the IRR, supra, the non-observance of the requirements may be excused if there is a
justification, provided the integrity of the seized items as evidence is "properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team."
Although it appears that the buy-bust team did not literally observe all the requirements, like photographing the
confiscated drugs in the presence of the accused, of a representative from the media and from the Department of
Justice, and of any elected public official who should be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
of it, whatever justification the members of the buy-bust team had to render in order to explain their non-observance of
all the requirements would remain unrevealed because the accused did not assail such non-compliance during the trial.
He raised the matter for the first time only in the CA. As such, the Court cannot now dwell on the matter because to do
so would be against the tenets of fair play and equity. That is what the Court said in People v. Sta. Maria, 25 to wit:
The law excuses non-compliance under justifiable grounds.1wphi1 However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse
the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with Section 21 will remain unknown,
because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers
alleged violations of Sections 21 and 86 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead
raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in
the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to 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.
We point out that the non-adherence to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was not a serious flaw that would
make the arrest of the accused illegal or that would render the shabu subject of the sale by him inadmissible as evidence
against him. What was crucial was the proper preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu,
inasmuch as that would be significant in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.26
The State showed here that the chain of custody of the shabu was firm and unbroken. The buy-bust team properly
preserved the integrity of the shabu as evidence from the time of its seizure to the time of its presentation in court.
Immediately upon the arrest of the accused, Paras marked the plastic sachet containing theshabu with the accuseds
initials of NBB. Thereafter, Paras brought the sachet and the contents to the ADSOU,27where his superior officer, Insp.
Cruz, prepared and signed the request for the laboratory examination of the contents of the marked sachet.28 P02 De
Ocampo handcarried the request and the evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory.29 SPO 1 Bugabuga of that office
recorded the delivery of the request and the marked sachet, which were all received by Chemist Dela Rosa.30 In turn,
Chemist Dela Rosa examined the contents of the marked sachet, and executed Physical Sciences Report No. D-1 03 8-03
confirming that the marked sachet contained 0.06 gram of shabu.31 In this regard, the accused did not deny that Paras
and Chemist Dela Rosa affirmed the sequence of custody of the shabu during the trial.32
The CA and the RTC correctly imposed life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00. Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 states that the penalty for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, regardless of the quantity and purity,
shall be life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P 10,000,000.00.33
WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the decision promulgated by the Court of Appeals on January 29, 2010; and ORDER the
accused to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 181826

January 9, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
HONG YENG E and TSIEN TSIEN CHUA, Appellants.
This is about the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal sale of drugs was
consummated. Absence of proof of consummation, the accused may be acquitted for illegal sale of drugs. Nonetheless,
accused may be convicted for "illegal possession of prohibited drugs"-penalized in Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) 6425,
as amended-as possession is necessarily included in the crime charged in the Information.
The Facts and the Case
The City Prosecutor of Manila separately charged the accused Hong Yen E @ "Benjie Ong" (Yen E), Tsien Tsien Chua
(Chua), and Gun Jie Ang (Ang) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of that city for violation of Section 15, Article III in
relation to Section 2(e), (f), (m), and (o), Article I in relation to Article 21 of R.A. 6425, as amended by Presidential Decree
7659.1
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Special Investigator (SI) Roy Rufino C. Suega (Suega) testified that Atty.
Ruel Lasala, Chief of the Narcotics Division, ordered him to place accused Yen E under surveillance and arrange a
possible buy-bust involving him. Subsequently, Suega went to Jollibee, Masangkay Branch, together with SI Noel C.

Bocaling for a pre-arranged meeting with Yen E. At that meeting, Yen E agreed to sell two kilograms of shabu to Suega
for P600,000.00 per kilogram. He was to deliver the shabu in the evening of the following day at the same place.
Suega caused the preparation of boodle money, consisting of 24 bundles of 100 10-peso bills with four 500-peso bills to
cover the top and the bottom of each bundle. He had the 500-peso bills marked with "RS-1," "RS-2," "RS-3" and "RS-4"
at the right top portion.2 As agreed, the NBI agents met with Yen E again on the evening of September 5, 2001. Yen E
arrived but requested the police buyers to meet him at Lai-Lai Restaurant. Before he left, Yen E took a peek at the
money.
At the Lai-Lai Restaurant, Chua and Ang arrived and approached Yen E. Upon the latters instruction, Chua handed over
the plastic bags she had to Suega. Convinced that these contained shabu, Suega lit his cigarette, the signal that the
buy-bust had been completed. After the arrest of the three, Suega placed the shabu in plastic bags and marked these
with "H. YEN-1" and "H.YEN-2" with the date "9-06-2001."3 The police then submitted the suspected shabu for
laboratory examination. Yvette Ylao, an NBI forensic analyst testified that, upon examination, the contents of the plastic
bags proved to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Accused Chua denied the charges and testified that it was a case of "hulidap" and they tortured her. They divested her
of her jewelry and demanded P2 million for her release. Yen E also denied the charges and complained of being a victim
of "hulidap." He testified that the arresting officers demanded P2 million for his release. Ang, on the other hand, jumped
bail and thus waived his right to adduce evidence.
On April 29, 2004 the RTC found the three accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02168,4 the latter affirmed in toto the RTC Decision. It also
denied the accuseds motion for reconsideration on August 6, 2007, hence, this appeal.
The Issue Presented
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding that the prosecution succeeded in proving beyond
reasonable doubt the consummation of the illegal sale of prohibited drugs.
The Ruling of the Court
One. To prove the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution's evidence should establish the following
elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment. Absent any of these two elements, the prosecutions case must fail.
Here, while SI Suega claimed that Yen E offered to sell to him two kilograms of shabu for P1.2 million and that he
agreed to buy the same, the sale was not consummated. He thus narrated:
Q: What happened when this Chinese lady handed to you the plastic bag?
A: Well, I immediately inspected the contents of the said bag and I noticed the bag has two transparent plastic bags and
crumpled newspapers covered it.
Q: And what was the content of this?
A: Based on my initial examination, I am convinced that it is shabu. Based on its appearance.
Q: What happened, Mr. Witness, when this Chinese lady handed to you the plastic bag?

A: Well, I immediately lighted a cigarette. And the lighting of the cigarette is a pre-arranged signal to our back-up team
that the drugs are there already and that is a signal to conduct the arrest. (sic)
xxxx
Q: What happened, Mr. Witness, when you testified that you gave a pre-arranged signal?
A: After that, I already saw my back-up team approaching our position and then before I could hand over the money to
Mr. Benjie Ong, the arrest was already made.5 (Emphasis supplied)
During the re-cross examination, SI Suega admitted that the back-up team immediately arrested the appellants before
he could deliver the buy-bust money to the appellants, thus:
Q: Okay, there was no payment whatsoever?
A: I have the money with me to pay but before I can do so, the back-up team already assisted me in conducting the
arrest.
Q: In other words, you did not actually pay for what you claim you have received? Hindi mo binayaran ang sinasabi mong
inabot sa iyo. Is that correct?
A: That's correct, sir.6
It is material in illegal sale of dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place. What consummates the buy-bust
transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in turn, the sellers receipt of the marked money.7While
the parties may have agreed on the selling price of the shabu and delivery of payment was intended, these do not prove
consummated sale. Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or after,8 is required.
In an attempt to prove a consummated sale, the prosecution heavily relied on the testimony of SI Suega that Yen E
took a peek at the money before they went to the restaurant for the swap with shabu. But looking at a thing does not
transfer possession of it to the beholder. Such a tenet would make window shoppers liable for theft.
Two. Appellants exoneration from the sale of prohibited drugs does not spell freedom from all criminal liability as they
may be convicted for illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Section 89 of R.A. 6425. This Court has consistently
ruled that possession is necessarily included in the sale of illegal drugs.
Given that illegal possession is an element of and is necessarily included in the illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the Court
will now determine appellants culpability under Section 8.
The elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are as follows: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the prohibited drug.10
The evidence on record clearly established that appellant Chua was in possession of the plastic bags containing
prohibited drugs without the requisite authority. Applying Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court,11 a disputable
presumption arises that she is the owner of the bag and its contents. It may be rebutted by contrary proof that the
accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question, and did not intend to do so. The burden of
evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi.12 Here, Chua failed to present
evidence to rebut the presumption. She claims that she was a victim of frame-up and extortion by the narcotics agents
of the NBI. This defense is viewed with disfavor for it can be easily concocted.13The defense of frame-up, often imputed
to police officers, requires strong proof when offered as a defense, because of the presumption that public officers
acted in the regular performance of their official duties.14

Although the plastic bags containing shabu were found solely in the possession of Chua, it was evident that Yen E had
knowledge of its existence. As the records would show, Yen E negotiated for the sale of dangerous drugs. When Chua
arrived in the vicinity, she approached Yen E before delivering the shabu to Suega.1wphi1 These acts of the accused
indubitably demonstrate a coordinated plan on their part to actively engage in the illegal business of drugs. When
conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all conspirators. Direct evidence of conspiracy is not necessary as it can
be clearly deduced from the acts of the accused.1wphi1
Three. As to the accuseds argument that the NBI operatives failed to observe the chain of custody rule in dangerous
drugs cases, we do not agree. The alleged failure of the apprehending team to inventory and photograph the confiscated
items immediately after the operation, is not fatal to the prosecutions cause. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be used in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.15 Here, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs
had been preserved as there is evidence to account for the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized shabu,
starting from its confiscation to its presentation as evidence in the RTC.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 02168 dated March 30, 2007 is hereby
MODIFIED. The Court FINDS Hong Yen E@ "Agi/Benjie Ong" and Tsien Tsien Chua guilty of illegal possession of
prohibited drugs under Section 8 of Republic Act 6425; IMPOSES on them, in accordance with the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, imprisonment for 8 years as minimum to 12 years as maximum; and ORDERS them to pay a fine of
P12,000.00. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 180514

April 17, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
DANTE L. DUMALAG, Accused-Appellant.
For review is the Decision1 dated July 3, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01847, which affirmed the
Decision2 dated November 16, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, of Laoag City in Criminal Case Nos.
1683-19 and 1684-19, tinding accused-appellant Dante L. Dumalag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II,
Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Informations against accused-appellant read:
Criminal Case No. 1683-19, for violation of Rep. Act No. 9165 (Possession)
That on or about 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon of January 5, 2005 at the Sexy Beach Resort located at Brgy. Estancia,
Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody three (3) heat sealed
plastic sachets weighing 0.01 grams, 0.015 grams, and 0.04 grams respectively (sic) for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu", without having the authority, license or prescription to do so.3
Criminal Case No. 1684-19, for violation of Rep. Act No. 9165 (Sale)
That on or about 3:30 oclock in the afternoon of January 5, 2005 at the Sexy Beach Resort located at Brgy. Estancia,
Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) small heat sealed plastic sachet containing

Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a regulated drug, weighing 0.023 grams to a police poseur
buyer in a buy bust operation without the necessary license or authority to do so.4
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges when he was arraigned on June 14, 2005.5
During the preliminary conference on June 27, 2005, the parties made the following admissions:
The defense admitted the following proposals of the prosecution:
1. The identity of the accused as the same Dante Dumalag also known as Dato Dumalag who was arraigned in
these cases.
2. That the accused is a resident of Brgy. 2, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte on or before January 5, 2005.
3. That the accused was at the Sexy Beach [Resort] at Brgy. Estancia, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte in the afternoon of
January 5, 2005.
4. That the prosecution witnesses namely: PO3 Rousel Albano, PO2 Danny Valdez, SPO4 Angel Salvatierra and
PO2 Harold Nicolas are members of the Special Operations Group (SOG) on or before January 5, 2005.
5. That the accused is not authorized to sell neither to possess prohibited drugs known as shabu.
For its part, the prosecution only admitted the proposal of the defense that the accused and PO2 Danny Valdez are town
mates.6
The defense made additional admissions during pre-trial on June 28, 2005, which the RTC stated in its Order7 of even
date:
Upon proposal of the Court, the defense admitted the existence of the initial laboratory report, the confirmatory report
and the result of the urine test issued by Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Mary Ann Cayabyab (Cayabyab) which were
marked as Exhibits "I", "J" and "K", respectively.
The prosecution and the defense also agreed that before 2:00 oclock in the afternoon of the date of the incident, the
accused had rented and was occupying room number 3 of the Resort Hotel and Restaurant located at Sexy Beach,
Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte.
Thereafter, the prosecution and defense considered the pre-trial closed and terminated.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution called Police Officer (PO) 3 Rousel Al Albano8 (Albano) and PO2 Danny U. Valdez9 (Valdez) to the
witness stand, while dispensing with the testimony of Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Mary Ann Cayabyab (Cayabyab) in
view of the stipulation of the parties as to the substance of her testimony.10 The prosecution likewise submitted the
following object and documentary evidence: (a) the Joint Affidavit11 dated January 6, 2005 executed by the Special
Operations Group (SOG) members who conducted the buy-bust operation on January 5, 2005, including PO3 Albano and
PO2 Valdez; (b) the Extracted Police Blotters12 dated January 6, 2005 which recorded the events prior to and after the
buy-bust operation; (c) two pieces of P100.00 marked bills used in the buy-bust operation;13 (d) the Request for
Laboratory Examination14 dated January 5, 2005 of one heat-sealed sachet marked "RA" and three heat-sealed sachets
marked "R" of suspected shabu confiscated from accused-appellant; (e) Request for Drug Test Examination15 dated
January 5, 2005 of accused-appellants person; (f) one heat-sealed sachet of suspected shabu marked "RA";16 (g) three
heat-sealed sachets of suspected shabu marked "R";17 (h) PSI Cayabyabs Chemistry Report No. D-003-200518 dated
January 5 and 6, 2005 stating that the sachets submitted for examination tested positive for methamphetamine

hydrochloride; (i) PSI Cayabyabs Chemistry Report No. CDT-002-200519 dated January 6, 2005 stating that accusedappellants urine sample tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride; (j) the Certification of Seized
Items20 dated January 5, 2005 prepared by PO3 Albano and PO2 Valdez enumerating the items seized from accusedappellants possession when arrested; (k) several pieces of crumpled aluminum foils;21 (l) a purple disposable
lighter;22 and (m) an empty Winston cigarette pack.23
The prosecutions version of events was presented by the RTC as follows:
At around 2:00 oclock in the afternoon of January 5, 2005, a female police informant from Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte went
to the office of the Special Operations Group (now Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Team or PAID-SOT)
located at Camp Juan, Laoag City and reported that a certain Dato Dumalag, a known drug personality of Brgy. 2,
Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte was at Sexy Beach Resort owned by Bebot Ferrer selling shabu to customers. Acting upon the
report, PO3 Rousel Albano and PO2 Danny Valdez relayed the information to their team leader, Police Inspector Rolando
Battulayan, who then organized a team composed of PO3 Albano, PO2 Valdez, SPO4 Salvatierra and PO2 Harold Nicolas
to conduct a buy bust operation against the suspect. PO3 Albano was assigned to act as poseur buyer while the rest of
the team will act as perimeter back up. PO3 Albano was also tasked to mark the two pieces of P100 bills provided by
Inspector Battulayan to be used as buy bust money and placed the letter "R" between the letters G and P of Republika
Ng Pilipinas on the face of the bills. The pre-operation activity was also recorded in the police blotter. Afterwards, the
team proceeded to the target place located in Brgy. Estancia, Pasuquin at around 2:30 oclock that same afternoon.
Upon reaching the place at around 3:00 oclock, the police asked the caretaker of the beach resort if a person is
occupying Room 03 as reported by the asset. The caretaker who was with another caretaker and both of whom were
female gave them the information that indeed a male person was occupying the said room. After they prepared for the
plan and have surveyed the area for five to seven minutes, they proceeded with the drug bust. The members of the back
up security positioned themselves on the southern part of the alley about 15 meters away from Room 3 while PO3
Albano and the police asset went to the said room of the suspect which was located at northernmost part of the main
building of the resort. When they were already at the door, the asset called out the name of the suspect Dato and PO3
Albano knocked at the door. After the asset also knocked at the door, a male person peeped through and upon
recognizing the police asset, Dato Dumalag told her, "Mano Alaenyo, sumrek kay pay lang ngarud" (How much will you
get, come in then). As they were already inside the room, PO3 Albano told the suspect, "Balor dos ti alaenmi" (We will
get worth two). The suspect then went to the dresser located on the southern part of the room and west of the door
and took one small plastic sachet and handed the same to PO3 Albano who immediately handed the two marked P100
bills. After the suspect had pocketed the money on his right front pocket, he told them, "Rumaman kay pay ngarud tigP50.00 (Taste first, P50 worth for each of you). At that instance, PO3 Albano gave the pre-arranged signal to the
members of the back up security that the sale was already consummated by pressing the button of his cellphone to
retrieve and call the last dialed number which was the cell number of PO2 Valdez. After making the signal, PO3 Albano
grabbed the right hand of the suspect and informed him of his authority. The suspect scuffled with the police officer
who was however able to subdue him.
In the meantime, after PO2 Valdez received the miss call of PO3 Albano, he and his companions rushed inside the room
of the suspect. PO3 Albano had already handcuffed the suspect by then and was holding him at that time. While PO3
Albano frisked the accused where he confiscated a P50 bill in which three other sachets of suspected shabu were
inserted, PO2 Valdez searched the room and confiscated some items which were on top of the dresser, such as five
crumpled aluminum foil, stick of cigarette, cigarette foil, a lighter and a cellphone. Afterwards, they brought the suspect
and the confiscated items to their headquarters in Laoag City where PO3 Albano marked the sachet of shabu bought
from the suspect with his initials "RA". He also marked the other three sachets and the P50 bill in which he found the
said sachets with the letter "R" on one side and the letters "DD" on the other side. He also prepared the confiscation
receipt which the accused signed and the post operation report. On the other hand, PO2 Valdez marked the items that
he confiscated with his initials "DUV". They then brought the confiscated items for laboratory examination together with
a letter request.
Upon receipt of the specimens, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory Office in
Camp Juan, Police Senior Inspector Mary Ann Cayabyab, examined the same. Particularly with respect to the four

sachets, she found the contents thereof to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. This is shown in her Initial Laboratory
Report as well as in her confirmatory report, Chemistry Report No. D-003-2005. The said Forensic Chemical Officer also
found the urine sample of the accused positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride as shown in Chemistry Report No.
CDT-002-005.
It must be noted that in the course of his testimony, PO3 Albano identified their Joint Affidavit of arrest, the extract of
the police blotter showing the pre-operation activity; the extract of the police blotter containing the post operations
report, the two pieces of P100 bills buy bust money bearing Serial Nos. *3664717 and PG656160, the three plastic
confiscated from the possession of the accused with the marking letter "R" and "DD", the P50 bill in which the three
sachets were supposedly rolled, the plastic sachet containing crystalline substance that was sold by the suspect and the
Certification of Seized Items. In the case of PO2 Valdez, he identified those that he confiscated: the five (5) pieces of
crumpled aluminum foil, the Nokia 3210 cellphone, the Winston cigarette pack, a stick of Winston cigarette and a purple
cigarette lighter. Both witnesses also identified the letter request for laboratory examination and the letter request for
urine examination.24 (Citations omitted.)
Evidence for the defense were the testimonies of accused-appellant Himself25 and Kaichel Bolosan26 (Bolosan), and their
respective Sworn Statements dated February 18, 2005.27 The defense averred that the police officers framed accusedappellant after failing to extort money from him. The RTC summed up the defenses evidence, to wit:
That afternoon of January 5, 2005, Kaishel Bolosan was with his friends Nathaniel Bolosan, Mark Milan, Jay Adaon and
Benjie Galiza singing at a videoke establishment located at the corner of the entrance of Sexy Beach. While the said
group was there, Dante or Dato Dumalag whom Kaishel had known because he usually played billiards in his (accuseds)
house at Brgy. 2, Pasuquin but with whom he has not had any conversation before, passed by their place in a chop-chop
motorcycle. Dante Dumalag was then with a female companion. As soon as Dante had parked his motorcycle, he and his
female companion immediately went inside the hotel. This, Kaishel and his companions did not mind as they kept on
singing. The caretaker and the cleaner of the hotel were there at that time when Dante Dumalag entered the hotel.
Thirty (30) minutes after Dante and his female companion entered the hotel, six men arrived in a red pick up vehicle.
Kaishel Bolosan knew them to be policemen because he recognized one of them to be Danny Valdez, a policeman who is
a resident of Pasuquin and whom he usually saw in his uniform flagging down a ride in going to Laoag City, arrived in a
red pick up vehicle. The police officers who were all male asked first the caretaker where the room of Dante Dumalag
was and after looking for it for about five (5) minutes, Kaishel assumed that they entered the room of Dante because
after they proceeded to the back, he did not see them anymore. Two of the police officers, however, remained at the
side of the hotel, one of whom moved their pick up vehicle beside the hotel.
In the meantime, as Dante Dumalag and his companion Irish Sao were already in the hotel where they were supposed to
rest, they rented a room, particularly Room No. 3. When they were already inside, Dante Dumalag went to the
bathroom to take a bath while his lady companion lay on the bed. After taking a bath, Dante heard somebody knocked
at the door. Only wearing a short pants as he just came from the bathroom, he went to open the door and as he did so,
police officer Rousel Albano whose name he came to know the following day, pushed the door, entered the room and
pointed his gun at him. At that time, Irish Sao was then in front of the mirror. Officer Albano supposedly let Dante turn
his back and without identifying himself and without giving any reason why, he handcuffed the accused, made him lie on
the bed face down, placed a pillow on his head, pointed his gun at him and frisked him but did not find any contraband.
The accused was then made to stand up and it was at that instance that the two policemen (including Danny Valdez)
who followed Rousel Albano inside the room let Irish Sao leave the room and without telling what they were looking for,
searched the room. They took his cellphone and that was the time that the policemen also showed him two sachets of
shabu. Dante Dumalag however did not know from where they produced the shabu because he was made to bow his
head on the bed. After showing the shabu, Rousel Albano placed the barrel of his gun inside the mouth of Dante
Dumalag but removed it when one of his companions told him that he might accidentally pull the trigger. Rousel Albano
then told him that they will just talk so that there will be no case. Dante Dumalag understood this to mean that he has to
settle the case by giving them money. When he did not accede, Rousel Albano allegedly boxed and pushed him on the
stomach, causing him to stoop down. They then let him put on his sando and because he was in handcuffs, Nicomedes
or Medy Lasaten, a detainee who was with the policemen at that time, helped him do so. The policemen then brought
Dante Dumalag to the vehicle.

Before that, Kaishel Bolosan and his companions were still there at the video establishment. After the lapse of 15
minutes from the time they entered the hotel, Kaishel saw the four policemen re-appear and just stood by and
afterwards, one of them called him and his companions to board the chop chop motorcycle of the accused in their pick
up and after complying with the order of the policemen, they were asked to leave. When they have already returned to
the videoke bar, that was the time that Kaishel saw Dante Dumalag brought out of the hotel by two policemen. Dante
Dumalag was then boarded at the back of the pick up where he was sandwiched by three policemen while Danny Valdez
was on the wheel and Irish Sao was at the passenger seat in front. The other two policemen rode at the back of the pick
up. As the pick up left, it still stopped by the videoke bar where Danny Valdez in a threatening tone told Kaishel and his
companions not to say anything and that they will arrest them all shabu users. At that time, Dante Dumalag did not see
Kaishel because he was made to bow his head in his seat. When the pick up moved out of the place during which Kaishel
allegedly saw Dante being boxed by one of the policemen, they first dropped by the house of Danny Valdez where they
took something to cover the eyes of the accused, after which they proceeded to the camp.28
On November 16, 2005, the RTC promulgated its Decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the felonies charged and decreeing thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Dante Dumalag GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as
charged in Criminal Case No. 1683-19 for illegal possession of shabu aggregately weighing 0.065 gram and is therefore
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to
FIFTEEN (15) YEARS and to pay a fine of P400,000.00.
Said accused is likewise found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of illegal sale of shabu in Criminal Case No.
1684-19 and is therefore sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine ofP2,000,000.00.
The contraband subject of these cases are hereby confiscated, the same to be disposed of as the law prescribes.29
In an Order30 dated December 2, 2005, the RTC gave due course to accused-appellants Notice of Appeal and directed
that the records of his cases be forwarded to the Court of Appeals within the period prescribed by the rules. Accusedappellant was then transferred to and committed at the New Bilibid Prison on December 5, 2005, pending his appeal.31
Accused-appellant insisted that he is innocent and that the charges against him were merely fabricated. According to
accused-appellant, the prosecution failed to establish the factual details which led to his arrest.1wphi1Accusedappellant pointed out that he was consistent in stating that at the time he was arrested, he had a female companion
with him, which was contrary to the police officers self-serving testimonies that accused-appellant was alone when he
was arrested; that the prosecution failed to impeach the credibility of Bolosan who testified that there were six men
who arrived at the resort shortly before accused-appellants arrest, thereby refuting the prosecutions claim that the
buy-bust team was composed of only four male police officers, plus the female informant; and that there would have
been no doubt as to the existence of the female informant had the prosecution presented her during the trial. Accusedappellant further argued that the police officers who arrested him and purportedly confiscated the sachets of shabu
from his possession failed to strictly comply with the mandated procedure under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.
The said provision of the law and jurisprudence on the matter require that the marking of the drugs be done
immediately after they are seized from the accused; otherwise, reasonable doubt arises as to the authenticity of the
seized drugs. Accused-appellant claimed that the sachets of shabu supposedly seized from his possession were marked
when he was already at the police station and not at the place of his arrest.
In its Decision dated July 3, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC judgment of conviction.
Thus, accused-appellant instituted this appeal32 anchored on the following grounds:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF
THE APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT CONSIDERING THAT:

1. THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTIONS WITNESSES ARE REPLETE WITH SUBSTANTIAL OR SIGNIFICANT
INCONSISTENCIES WHICH PROVE THAT NO BUY BUST OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED.
2. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES IN THE CUSTODY OF SEIZED PROHIBITED AND
REGULATED DRUGS AS EMBODIED IN SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165 WHICH RAISES DOUBT WHETHER THE
SHABU PRESENTED IN COURT IS THE SAME FROM THE ONE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED FROM PETITIONER.33
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Accused-appellant challenges the credence and weight accorded by both the RTC and the Court of Appeals to the
testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution as opposed to those of the defense.
It is an established rule that factual findings of the trial court, if supported by evidence on record, and particularly when
affirmed by the appellate court, are binding on this Court, unless significant facts and circumstances were shown to have
been overlooked or disregarded which, if considered, would have altered the outcome of the case. Moreover, questions
as to credibility of a witness are matters best left to the appreciation of the trial court because of its unique opportunity
of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness deportment on the stand while testifying,
which opportunity is denied to the reviewing tribunal.34
Accused-appellant herein failed to present any cogent reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC and the Court of
Appeals. The totality of the prosecutions evidence established a logical, vivid, and detailed account of the buy-bust
operation which ultimately led to accused-appellants arrest and the seizure of the plastic sachets of shabu from his
possession. The alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses testimonies on the number and gender of the buybust team members are trivial and irrelevant for it does not involve any of the necessary elements for conviction of the
accused-appellant for the illegal possession and sale of shabu.
For a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, it must be shown that (a) the accused was in
possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized
by law; and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.35
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities
of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What
is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.36
In this case, prosecution witnesses, PO3 Albano and PO2 Valdez, categorically stated under oath that as members of the
buy-bust team, they caught accused-appellant in flagrante delicto selling and possessing shabu. The prosecution was
able to establish that (a) accused-appellant had no authority to sell or to possess any dangerous drugs; (b) during the
buy-bust operation conducted by the police on January 5, 2005 at the Sexy Beach Resort in Barangay Estancia, Pasuquin,
Ilocos Norte, accused-appellant sold and delivered to PO3 Albano, acting as a poseur-buyer, for the price of Two
Hundred Pesos (P200.00), one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.023 grams of white crystalline substance,
chemically confirmed to be shabu; and (c) as a result of a search incidental to the valid warrantless arrest of accusedappellant, he was caught in possession of three more heat-sealed plastic sachets containing 0.01, 0.015, and 0.04 grams
of white crystalline substance, all chemically confirmed also to be shabu. The two marked One Hundred Peso (P100.00)
bills used as buy-bust money, as well as the aforementioned sachets of shabu were among the object evidence
submitted by the prosecution to the RTC.
As for the non-presentation by the prosecution of the informant, this point need not be belabored. The Court has time
and again held that "the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor is it
indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative."37 The
informant's testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the prosecution.38

In contrast, accused-appellants defense of frame-up was doubtful and uncorroborated. The defenses of denial and
frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and
standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Republic Act No. 9165. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial
and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence.39 In the instant case, accused-appellant failed to
present, other than his own testimony, sufficient evidence to support his claims. Bolosan did not see and was not able to
testify on the actual buy-bust operation, which took place inside accused-appellants room at Sexy Beach Resort, as
Bolosan only witnessed the events taking place from outside the resort.
Furthermore, the Court finds that the chain of custody of the sachets of shabu seized from accused-appellant had been
duly established by the prosecution, in compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. As pertinently summarized
by the Court of Appeals, the prosecution had proven each and every link of the chain of custody of the sachets of shabu
from the time they were seized from accused-appellant, kept in police custody then transferred to the laboratory for
examination, and up to their presentation in court, to wit:
It has been established that: after the police officers reached appellants room at the Sexy Beach Resort, and PO3
Albano acted as poseur-buyer, he was handed one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing shabu. After accused was
arrested, the police officers were able to retrieve from appellants possession the marked money, as well as three (3)
other heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu. They brought appellant to their office, together with the confiscated
items, and prepared the necessary documents for the filing of the cases against him. PO3 Albano and PO2 Valdez signed
the Certification of Seized Items (Exhibit "L") dated 05 January 2005. The team leader, Police Inspector Rolando
Battulayan, prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination (Exhibit "E") dated 05 January 2005 of said heat-sealed
plastic sachets containing alleged shabu, with the necessary markings on them, to determine if said items contain
methamphetamine hydrochloride. The one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet, subject of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
was marked with letters "RA," while the three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets, subject of the illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, were marked with the letter
"R" on one side and "DD" (initials of appellant), on the other side. PO3 Albano was the one who made said markings and
delivered the same to the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, Camp Capt. Valentin. Based on the Chemistry
Report No. D-003-2005 (Initial Laboratory Report) dated 05 January 2005 (Exhibit "I") and Chemistry Report No. D-0032005 (Exhibit "J") dated 06 January 2005 of Police Senior Inspector/Forensic Chemical Officer Mary Ann Nillo Cayabyab,
the four (4) specimens (A, B1, B2 and B3), upon qualitative examination, tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Even appellants urine sample tested positive for methamphetamine, as stated in
Chemistry Report No. CDT-002-2005 (Exhibit "K").40(Citations omitted.)
Accused-appellants insistence that the police officers broke the chain of custody rule when they failed to mark the
seized items immediately upon their confiscation at the place where he was apprehended lacks legal basis.
It has already been settled that the failure of police officers to mark the items seized from an accused in illegal drugs
cases immediately upon its confiscation at the place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of
custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.41 In People v. Resurreccion,42the Court explained
that "marking" of the seized items "immediately after seizure and confiscation" may be undertaken at the police station
rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. It was
further emphasized that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court
elaborated in this wise:
Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not automatically impair the integrity of
chain of custody.
The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165 does not necessarily render an accuseds arrest illegal or
the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.

As we held in People v. Cortez, testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. Cognizant of this fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 on
the handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs provides as follows:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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 x x x.
Accused-appellant broaches the view that SA Isidoros failure to mark the confiscated shabu immediately after seizure
creates a reasonable doubt as to the drugs identity. People v. Sanchez, however, explains that RA 9165 does not specify
a time frame for "immediate marking," or where said marking should be done:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of "marking" of the
seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence
subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the
place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires 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 (2) immediately upon confiscation.
To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that the marking be made in the
presence of the accused and upon immediate confiscation. "Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. Thus, in
People v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the presence
of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate
confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.43 (Emphases
supplied, citations omitted.)
There is no question herein that the confiscated sachets of shabu and related paraphernalia were inventoried and
marked in the presence of accused-appellant at the police station where he was brought right after his arrest.
Finally, the penalties imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are correct.
Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that the penalty for illegal possession of shabu, with a total
weight of 0.065 grams, is twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine ranging from Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to Four Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the accused shall be sentenced to an
indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum
term shall not be less than the minimum prescribed by the same. Thus, in Criminal Case No. 1683-19, the penalties
imposed upon accused-appellant of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as the minimum term, to fifteen
(15) years, as the maximum term, and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00), are in order.

The penalty for illegal sale of shabu (regardless of the quantity and purity involved), under Article II, Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165, shall be life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00). Consequently, the Court upholds the sentence imposed upon
accused-appellant of life imprisonment and the order for him to pay a fine of Two Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00) in
Criminal Case No. 1684-19.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appeal of accused-appellant Dante L. Dumalag is DENIED and the Decision
dated July 3, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01847 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 184760

April 23, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
PATERNO LORENZO y CASAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Assailed in this appeal via Notice of Appeal is the 14 June 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR HC No. 02184
which affirmed the 05 October 2005 Decision2 promulgated by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, in
Criminal Case Nos. 6991-93, finding accused-appellant Paterno Lorenzo y Casas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.3
Accused-appellant was arrested and charged following a buy-bust operation.
On 12 September 2003, two (2) Informations were filed against accused-appellant Paterno Lorenzo y Casas (Lorenzo)
charging him with violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions thereof
reading.
Criminal Case No. 6992
That on or about the 10th day of September 2003 in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control a total of 2.04 grams of white
crystalline substance contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets which gave positive result to the test
for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.4
Criminal Case No. 6993
That on or about the 10th day of September 2003, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another 0.20 gram of white crystalline substance
contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet which gave positive result to the test for Metamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.5
The cases were raffled to Branch 76 of the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 6992-93.

One Conrado Estanislao y Javier (Estanislao) was similarly charged in a different Information, which case was docketed
as Criminal Case No. 6991. Estanislao was accused of possessing illegal drugs in violation of the provisions of Section 11,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Information containing the following averments:
Criminal Case No. 6994
That on or about the 10th day of September 2003, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control of 0.05 gram of white
crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet which gave positive result to the test
for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
On arraignment, both accused, with the assistance of counsel, entered NOT GUILTY pleas.
The three (3) cases having been consolidated, joint trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented as its lone witness, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Noel P. Pineda, who was a member of the buy-bust
team.
The evidence for the prosecution sought to establish that on 9 September 2003, upon a series of reports relayed by a
confidential informant that a certain Paterno Lorenzo was peddling shabu in the Barangay Dulongbayan area, the team
of PO3 Pineda embarked on a buy-bust operation against said drug peddler. Anticipating the operation, PO3 Pineda
prepared two (2) pieces of marked P100.00 bills to be used as buy-bust money. At around 10:00 oclock in the evening of
the same day, PO3 Pineda, along with SPO1 Arellano and PO3 Tougan, proceeded to Barangay Dulongbayan and secretly
met with their confidential informant. According to the confidential informant, he had not seen Lorenzo and raised the
possibility that he was not in the area at the time. Assessing the situation, the police officers instructed the confidential
informant to continue with his surveillance of the area and to inform them immediately if he comes across Lorenzo.
At around 1:00 oclock in the morning of 10 September 2003, while PO1 Pineda and his companions were waiting at
Gen. Luna Street, the confidential informant reported that Lorenzo was already at the Daangbakal, Dulongbayan I area
and was selling prohibited drugs. Riding an unmarked vehicle, the team proceeded to where Lorenzo was. On their
arrival, Lorenzo was talking to a man at the corner of Pulong Diablo and Daangbakal. PO3 Tougan stepped out of their
vehicle and hid in a place where he was not visible to Lorenzo. PO3 Pineda stayed close to SPO1 Arellano, who was then
hiding inside a tricycle near Lorenzo. While this was happening, the confidential informant approached Lorenzo for the
transaction. Lorenzo and the confidential informant were approximately four (4) meters away from PO3 Pineda. Because
PO3 Pineda knew who Lorenzo was and considering the place was illuminated, PO3 Pineda recognized the suspect. The
confidential informant and Lorenzo were talking for about one minute, after which the informant gave the marked
money to Lorenzo. After taking the marked money, Lorenzo handed the shabu to the informant. PO3 Pineda and SPO1
Arellano alighted from the tricycle and approached Lorenzo, and introduced themselves as police officers. They arrested
Lorenzo.
Upon being arrested, Lorenzo was bodily searched and PO1 Pineda was able to retrieve the marked money and 2 other
sachets of shabu from him. Seeing what had happened to Lorenzo, the man he was talking to and later on identified as a
certain Estanislao, attempted to escape the police officers and ran, but he was soon accosted by PO3 Tougan. A search
of his pockets yielded one (1) sachet of shabu.
After the buy-bust operation, Lorenzo and Estanislao were taken to the police station where the incident was recorded
in the police blotter. The plastic sachets containing 2.04 and 0.20 grams of white crystalline substance bought from
Lorenzo was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. The results as contained in Chemistry Report
no. D-1741-03E showed that the substance sold by Lorenzo was positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or
shabu.6

Interposing the twin defenses of denial and frame-up, accused-appellant Lorenzo and Estanislao stood before the
witness stand and presented their version of the facts.
Lorenzo was in his mountain bike on the way home to Dulongbayan sometime between 12:00 oclock in the evening and
1:00 oclock in the morning of 10 September 2003. Estanislao, who was also with him at the time, was riding in his motor
cross style bike and was supposed to buy food at said place after playing tong-its.
While the two (2) were traversing Daangbakal and Delos Angeles Street, the chain on Estanislaos bike went loose.
During the time Estanislao was repairing his bike, PO3 Tougan, PO3 Pineda, and SPO1 Arellano, who were then on board
an owner type jeepney, arrived and arrested Lorenzo and Estanislao. According to the police officers, they were to be
brought to the Municipal Hall. The two (2) suspects protested, claiming not having done anything wrong but the police
officers continued with the arrest. It was later that they were informed that the arrest was for illegal drugs.
On 5 October 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting Lorenzo for illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs,
but acquitting Estanislao, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
(a) Finding accused Paterno Lorenzo y Casas guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, first
paragraph, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 6993) or illegal selling of 0.20 gram of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
(b) Finding accused Paterno Lorenzo y Casas guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, second
paragraph, No.3, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 6992) or illegal possession of 2.04 gram of
methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of
Twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to Twelve years and six (months) as maximum and to pay a fine
of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
(c) Finding accused Conrado Estanislao y Javier, for violation of Section 11, second paragraph, sub paragraph 3,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, NOT GUILTY for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Detained accused Conrado Estanislao y Javier is ordered released from detention at the San Mateo Jail unless detained
for some other lawful cause.
The plastic sachets of shabu subject matter of the instant cases are ordered forfeited in favor of the government and the
Officer-In-Charge of the Court is hereby ordered to safely deliver or cause the safe delivery of the same to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.7
Weighing the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses, as well as the other evidence presented during
trial, the trial court gave more veracity to the prosecutions version that Lorenzo was caught in flagrante delicto selling
illegal drugs to a poseur-buyer during a buy-bust operation. The trial court gave credence to the prosecutions evidence
in accordance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions accorded to police officers.
According to the trial court, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the buyer in the buy-bust
operation and the seller, object and consideration, including the delivery of the shabu sold by Lorenzo and the payment
of the buy-bust money.
Invoking his innocence, Lorenzo appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, questioning the procedure followed by
the police operatives in the seizure and custody of the evidence against him.
On 14 June 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the RTC, disposing to wit:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, appeal is hereby dismissed and the assailed October 5, 2005 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court of San Mateo Rizal, Branch 76, in Criminal Case Nos. 6991-93, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to Section 13 (C), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by AM No. 00-5-03-SC dated
September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15, 2004. This judgment of the Court of Appeals may be
appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
Unyielding, Lorenzo appealed before this Court on Notice of Appeal,8 adopting the same arguments raised before the
Court of Appeals:
I.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF
SECTIONS 5 AND 11, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165; AND
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DEFENSE OF
DENIAL.
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 prosecutions evidence
and not on the weakness of the defense.
In fact, if the prosecution fails to meet the required quantum of evidence, the defense may logically not even present
evidence on its behalf. In which case, the presumption of innocence shall prevail and, hence, the accused shall be
acquitted. However, once the presumption of innocence is overcome, the defense bears the burden of evidence to show
reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to be determined. Consistent with the
rulings of this Court, it is but a fundamental and settled rule that factual findings of the trial court and its calibration of
the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate court high
respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The exception is when it is established
that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if
considered, will change the outcome of the case. Considering that what is at stake here is the liberty of accusedappellant, we have carefully reviewed and evaluated the records of the case and find it necessary to reverse the
appellate courts decision convicting accused-appellant.
Essentially, Lorenzo questions his conviction on the basis of reasonable doubt. The defense anchors its claim on the
failure of the prosecution to adopt the required procedure under Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, on the
custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs. According to the defense, this alleged
failure to follow proper procedure, i.e. inventory and photographing of the retrieved evidence, raises doubts as to
whether the specimen examined by the forensic chemist and presented in court were indeed retrieved from accusedappellant. The defense also faults the police operatives for not having coordinated with the PDEA regarding the buybust.
Thus, for resolution by this Court is the sole issue of whether the prosecution discharged its burden of proving Lorenzos
guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged.

We rule in the negative. The prosecutions case fails for failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drug with moral
certainty.
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 therefor.9 Material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale had actually taken place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.10 The
term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.
On the other hand, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item
or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the said drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be
established beyond doubt.
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent
doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart
from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and
sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same
degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.
While buy-bust operations have been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise
conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation is susceptible to police abuse. Thus, courts have been
mandated to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe
penalties for drug offenses.
Taking the aforementioned into consideration, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have
been laid down under the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for Republic Act No. 9165 and it is the prosecutions
burden to adduce evidence that these procedures have been complied with in proving the elements of the offense.
The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among
others, is provided under Section 21 (a), paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit:
(a) 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;
Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, which implements said
provision, reads:
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds,
as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officers/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers some flexibility in complying with the express requirements. Indeed, the evident
purpose of the procedure is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of or innocence of the accused. Thus, the proviso stating that noncompliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of

and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officers.
In People v. Sanchez,11 we clarified that this saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural
lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds.
Accused-appellant claims that no physical inventory and no photographing of the drugs took place. Non-compliance by
the police operatives with the foregoing requirements in the instant case is fatal to the prosecutions case. Although the
prosecution recognized its failure to coordinate with the PDEA because of the urgency of the situation, it ignored the
issue of specifically identifying the prohibited drug at the point of confiscation. There is absolutely nothing in the records
to show that the inventory and photography requirements, or their credible substitute to prove integrity and evidentiary
value, were ever followed.
In People v. Lim,12 this Court held:
xxx any apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and/or paraphernalia, should immediately
after seizure and 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. The failure of the agents to comply with such a requirement raises a doubt whether what was submitted for
laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the appellants. It negates the presumption
that official duties have been regularly performed by the PAOC-TF agents.
In Bondad, Jr. v. People,13 where the prosecution did not inventory and photograph the confiscated evidence, this Court
acquitted therein accused reasoning that failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements of the law compromised the
identity of the items seized.
In People v. Ruiz,14 this Court acquitted accused due to the failure of the prosecution to comply with the procedures
under Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR as no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items
was taken under the circumstances required.
In People v. Orteza,15 the Court explained the implications of the failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit:
In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the
apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations
produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to
establish the identity of the corpus delicti.1avvphi1
The Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura, where the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the seized
marijuana at the time the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug.
More recently, in Zarraga v. People, the Court 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. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecution's failure to indubitably show
the identity of the shabu.
To reiterate, the flexibility offered by the IRR of Republic Act No. 9165 is coupled with the proviso that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items must be preserved.
Thus, in Malillin v. People,16 the Court explained that the "chain of custody" requirement performs this function in that it
ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The chain of evidence is
constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labeling and recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is
found until the time it is offered in evidence.17 Failure to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination

was the same one allegedly seized from accused is fatal to the prosecutions case. There can be no crime of illegal
possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the
same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.18
PO1 Pineda testified that it was their confidential agent who purchased the shabu from accused-appellant and that he
only retrieved it from said informant. He further testified that he marked the retrieved sachet of shabu together with
the two other sachets of shabu that were allegedly seized from the accused, but it was not certain when and where the
said marking was done nor who had specifically received and had custody of the specimens thereafter.
The Court also observes that the prosecution did not present the poseur-buyer who had personal knowledge of the
transaction. The lone prosecution witness was at least four meters away from where accused-appellant and the poseurbuyer were. From this distance, it was impossible for him to hear the conversation between accused-appellant and the
poseur-buyer.
The foregoing facts and circumstances create doubt as to whether the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from accusedappellant were the same ones that were released to Camp Crame and submitted for laboratory examination. We
therefore find that this failure to establish the evidences chain of custody is damaging to the prosecutions case.19
In sum, the totality of the evidence presented in the instant case failed to support accused-appellants conviction for
violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt all the elements of the offense.
Accordingly, the presumption of innocence should prevail.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Court of Appeals Decision dated 14 June 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02184, is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant PATERNO LORENZO y CASAS is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he
is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate
implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five days from
receipt of this Decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the Director General, Philippine National
Police, and the Director General, Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency, for their information.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 192816

July 6, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
JOEL GASPAR y WILSON, Appellant.
The Case
Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision1 dated 16 March 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CRH.C. No. 02117. The CA affirmed with modification the Decision2 dated 3 February 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Pasig, Branch 70, in Criminal Case Nos. 12840-D, 12841-D, 12842-D, convicting appellant Joel Gaspar y Wilson of
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 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On 25 August 2003, four separate Informations7 for different violations of RA 9165 were filed with the RTC of Pasig,
Branch 70. Three informations were against Joel Gaspar y Wilson (Gaspar), docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 12840-D,
12841-D and 12842-D. The fourth information was against Leomar San Antonio (San Antonio), docketed as Criminal Case
No. 12843-D. The informations state:
Criminal Case No. 12840-D
That, on or about the 22nd day of August, 2003 in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous drug,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another, 0.04 gram of white
crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to the test
for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8
Criminal Case No. 12841-D
That, on or about the 22nd day of August, 2003 in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous
drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly, possess and have in his custody and control 0.08 gram of
white crystalline substance contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, with 0.04 gram each, which was
found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of
the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.9
Criminal Case No. 12842-D
That, on or about the 22nd day of August, 2003 in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly, possess and have under his custody and control ten (10) transparent plastic sachets,
one (1) improvised water pipe, one (1) plastic container, two (2) disposable lighter, one (1) pair of scissors and one (1)
wooden stick, which are all instrument, equipment, apparatuses, or paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, sniffing,
consuming and ingesting "shabu", a dangerous drug, into the body, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.10

Criminal Case No. 12843-D

That, on or about the 22nd day of August, 2003 in the Municipality of San Juan, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous
drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly, possess and have in his custody and control 0.04 gram of
white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to the
test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.11
At the arraignment on 6 October 2003, both accused pleaded not guilty.
On 17 November 2003, at the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and defense entered into stipulations of facts
regarding the due execution and genuineness of the recovered items marked in evidence, which dispensed with the
presentation of the prosecutions witness, Forensic Chemist Isidro Cario. The stipulations of facts provide:
1. The due execution and genuineness of the Request for Laboratory Examination dated 22 August 2003 which
was marked in evidence as Exhibit "A", the Specimens Submitted to be marked as Exhibit "A-1" and the stamp
showing receipt thereof by the PNP Crime Laboratory as Exhibit "A-2";
2. The due execution and genuineness, as well as the truth of the contents, of Chemistry Report No. D-1618-03e
dated August 22, 2003 issued by Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Isidro Cario of the Crime Laboratory, Eastern Police
District Crime Laboratory Office, Mandaluyong City, which was marked in evidence as Exhibit "B", the findings as
appearing on the report as Exhibit "B-1" and the signature of the forensic chemist over his typewritten name
likewise as appearing on the report as Exhibit "B-2";
3. The existence of the plastic sachets, but not their source or origin, the contents of which was the subject of
the Request for Laboratory Examination, which were marked in evidence as follows: as Exhibit "C" (the
transparent plastic bag), as Exhibit "C-1" (the 1st plastic sachet marked JWG buy-bust), as Exhibit "C-2" (the 2nd
plastic sachet marked JWG1), as Exhibit "C-3" (the 3rd plastic sachet marked JWG2), as Exhibit "C-4" (the 4th
plastic sachet marked LASA), as Exhibit "C-5" (the 5th plastic sachet marked JWG9), as Exhibit "C-6" (the
improvised water pipe marked JWG4), as Exhibit "C-7" (the plastic contained marked JWG3), as Exhibit "C-8"
(the yellow disposable lighter marked JWG5), as Exhibit "C-9" (the scissors), as Exhibit "C-10" (the pink
disposable lighter marked JWG7), as Exhibit "C-11" (the wooden stick marked JWG8) and as Exhibit "C-12" (the
nine unused plastic sachets marked JWG10).12
Shortly after the pre-trial conference, San Antonio jumped bail and did not appear before the RTC during the trial. Thus,
San Antonio was deemed to have waived the presentation of his evidence and the case was submitted for decision
without any evidence on his part.
The prosecution presented the only witness: Police Officer 1 German Soreta (PO1 Soreta), the poseur-buyer in the buybust operation. The other prosecution witness, PO1 Armalito Magumcia (PO1 Magumcia), failed to appear in court
despite subpoenas sent to him; thus, his testimony was considered waived in an Order dated 26 April 2005.
The prosecution summed up its version of the facts: On 22 August 2003, at around 11:30 in the morning, the San Juan
Police Station Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU) through PO1 Soreta received an information via text message that sale of
shabu was in progress at the house of a person named Joel Gaspar, appellant in this case, located at No. 26-A Third
Street Barangay West Crame, San Juan.
PO1 Soreta immediately informed the head of the DEU, Police Inspector Ricardo Marso (Inspector Marso), regarding the
message received. Inspector Marso then directed PO1 Soreta, PO1 Magumcia, PO1 Jeffrey Timado, and PO1 Dave
Loterte to verify the report and, if necessary, to conduct a buy-bust operation. Inspector Marso gave PO1 Soreta, as

poseur-buyer, two one-hundred peso bills to be used as buy-bust money. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency on the planned buy-bust operation, the police officers proceeded to the target area.
Upon reaching the house of Gaspar, the police officers saw two persons just outside the door. One was later identified
as Gaspar, who handed something to the other, later identified as San Antonio. After San Antonio left Gaspars house,
the police officers stopped San Antonio and asked him, "Anong inabot sa iyo?" San Antonio replied, "Bakit?" The police
officers said, "Pulis kami." San Antonio opened his hand and there was a sachet of shabu. The police officers
immediately arrested San Antonio. PO1 Soreta and PO1 Magumcia informed San Antonio of his constitutional rights and
turned him over to PO1 Timario.
PO1 Soreta then approached Gaspar, who was already about to enter the house, and told him "Joel pa-iskor naman ng
dalawang piso." Gaspar went out and asked for payment. After receiving the amount of P200.00, Gaspar took out from
his right pocket a small transparent plastic sachet and handed it to PO1 Soreta. PO1 Soreta introduced himself as a
police officer and arrested and handcuffed Gaspar. The other police officers then rushed to the scene and assisted PO1
Soreta.
The police officers recovered from Gaspars possession two other small transparent plastic sachets, as well as drug
paraphernalia inside the house, which were in plain view from the widely open door. Gaspar and San Antonio were
brought to the San Juan Police Station for investigation and filing of charges. The plastic sachets and drug paraphernalia
recovered were appropriately marked and brought by PO1 Antazo to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory for examination. PO1 Soreta also executed an Affidavit of Arrest narrating the circumstances which led to
Gaspars apprehension.
Based on Chemistry Report No. D-1618-03-E dated 22 August 2003,13 Forensic Chemist Isidro Cario found the
recovered sachets positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The defense, on the other hand, presented Gaspar and Gloria Santiago (Santiago) as witnesses.
Gaspar testified that on 22 August 2003 at about 8:00 in the morning, while he was sleeping with his wife at home, he
was awakened by a loud noise and saw two men in civilian attire armed with guns who said, "Mga pulis Crame kami."
Gaspar asked the men what his offense was but they did not answer him and instead told him to stand up. Gaspar was
then handcuffed by one while the other searched the house. The one who made the search, later identified as PO1
Soreta, who did not find anything illegal inside the house, told his companion, later identified as PO1 Magumcia, "Pare,
dalhin natin sa Crame yan. Doon natin imbestigahan." PO1 Magumcia then told Gaspar, "Tara, sumama ka na."
At the San Juan Police Station, PO1 Soreta told Gaspar, "Dito, kaya kitang ilubog dito. Kung magbibigay ka ng treinta,
wala na tayong pag-uusapan pa, wala kang kaso." Gaspar, believing that he did not commit any offense, told them to
proceed with the filing of the charge. On 25 August 2003, Gaspar was brought for inquest. Here, Gaspar disclosed that
he only came to know his co-accused San Antonio inside the jail.
To corroborate Gaspars testimony, the defense presented Santiago, a neighbor of Gaspars who was washing clothes
outside her house when the incident occurred. Santiago testified that on 22 August 2003 at around 9:00 in the morning,
she saw three persons in civilian clothes kick open the door of Gaspars house. Two of them entered the house. Filled
with fear, Santiago went inside her house and observed the incident from the window. After some time, she saw Gaspar
being pulled out of his house. After the group left with Gaspar, Gaspars wife asked Santiago to accompany her to Camp
Crame. Upon reaching Camp Crame, they were told that Gaspar was not brought there. Later, they found out that
Gaspar was brought to the San Juan Police Station, which they visited the next day. On cross-examination, Santiago
admitted that she did not know what actually transpired inside the house since she only peeped through the window
when the incident occurred.
In its Decision dated 3 February 2006, the RTC found Gaspar and San Antonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of RA 9165. The RTC stated that given the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers
official duty and absent any clear showing of bias, malice or ill-motive on the part of the prosecution witness, PO1

Soreta, the court gives credence to his testimony. The RTC added that the testimony of a single witness suffices to
support a conviction if it is trustworthy and reliable, such as in this case. The dispositive portion of the decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 12840-D accused Joel Gaspar is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (Illegal Sale of Shabu), and is hereby sentenced to LIFE
IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP 500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12841-D accused Joel Gaspar is likewise found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (Illegal Possession of Shabu), and is hereby sentenced to suffer
imprisonment from Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Years and to pay a FINE of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (PHP 300,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12842-D accused Joel Gaspar is also found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of
Violation of Section 12, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs), and is hereby
sentenced to Six (6) Months and One (1) Day to Four (4) Years imprisonment and to pay a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos
(PHP 10,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12843-D accused Leomar San Antonio is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense of Violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (Illegal Possession of Shabu) and is hereby sentenced to
suffer imprisonment from Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Twenty (20) Years and to pay a FINE of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (PHP 300,000.00).
Considering the penalty imposed by the Court on accused Joel Gaspar relative to Criminal Case No. 12840-D, his
immediate commitment to the National Penitentiary, New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City, is hereby ordered.
Pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act 9165, the amount of PHP 200.00 recovered from the accused Joel Gaspar
representing the proceeds from the illegal sale of shabu is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
Again, pursuant to Section 21 of the same law, representatives from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) are
hereby ordered to take charge and have custody over the sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia object of these cases
for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.14
Gaspar filed an appeal with the CA. Gaspar imputed the following errors on the RTC:
I. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PROSECUTIONS
LONE WITNESS AND IN DISREGARDING THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE.
II. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS
5, 11 & 12 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO OVERTHROW THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN HIS FAVOR.15
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In a Decision dated 16 March 2010, the CA affirmed with modification the decision of the RTC. The CA found that the
prosecution fully discharged its burden of establishing all the elements of the crimes charged. The CA stated that the
prosecution was able to prove that the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs remained intact from the time
the drugs were recovered until they were submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for testing. As a result, the integrity
and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from Gaspar were duly proven not to have been compromised. The CA added
that the corpus delicti and the other elements of the crimes charged were sufficiently established by the prosecution

beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the evidence presented by the prosecution prevails over the defense of frame-up
alleged by Gaspar, which was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The dispositive portion of the decision
states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present appeal of accused-appellant Joel Gaspar y Wilson is DENIED. The
Decision dated 3 February 2006 of the Regional trial Court, Branch 70, Pasig City convicting accused-appellant Joel
Gaspar y Wilson of Violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in Criminal Case Nos. 12840-D, 12841-D and 12842-D is hereby AFFIRMED
WITH MODIFICATION on the penalty imposed to wit:
In Criminal Case No. 12840-D accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to
pay a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PHP 500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 12841-D accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE
(12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS as maximum and to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00), as provided in Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165; and
In Criminal Case No. 12842-D accused-appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE
(1) DAY, as minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS and SEVEN (7) MONTHS, as maximum and to pay a fine of TEN THOUSAND
PESOS (P10,000.00), as provided in Section 12, Article II, RA No. 9165.
SO ORDERED.16
Appellant Gaspar now comes before the Court, submitting that the Decision dated 16 March 2010 of the CA is contrary
to facts, law and applicable jurisprudence.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
At the outset, we reiterate the fundamental rule that findings of the trial court, which are factual in nature and which
involve the credibility of witnesses, are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts or
speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings.17 This rule finds an even more
stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals, like in the present case.
In a successful prosecution for offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA
9165, the following elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.18 What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.19
In Criminal Case No. 12840-D, all these elements were present. PO1 Soreta testified that he was the poseur-buyer in the
buy-bust operation conducted and identified Gaspar as seller of the plastic sachet containing shabu in exchange for a
consideration of P200.00. The sale was consummated after the exchange of buy-bust money and plastic sachet
occurred. In People v. Encila,20 we held that the delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the
marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapment officers and the accused. The crime of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs is committed as soon as the sale transaction is consummated.
On the other hand, under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the elements of the offense of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.21
Again, in Criminal Case No. 12841-D, all of these elements were duly proven. PO1 Soreta properly identified appellant as
the one he transacted with in the buy-bust operation and later arrested after the sale took place. After being arrested

in flagrante delicto, the police officers found in appellants possession two small transparent plastic sachets each
containing 0.04 gram of shabu, a prohibited drug, which appellant was not authorized to possess.
Next, appellant asserts that the recovery of the drug paraphernalia seen from outside the house because of the widely
open door is unbelievable since no person in his right mind would display the same for anyone to see.
We disagree. 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.
Appellant also claims that it is highly unlikely that PO1 Soreta could have easily bought shabu from him given that PO1
Soreta is a complete stranger.
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.22 Drug pushers do not
confine their nefarious trade to known customers and complete strangers are accommodated provided they have the
money to pay.23 Thus, it is not improbable that Gaspar sold shabu to a complete stranger like PO1 Soreta who presented
himself as a buyer.
Appellant further insists that the courts relied mainly on the version of the prosecutions lone witness and placed more
weight on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty instead of the accuseds right to be presumed
innocent.
In People v. De Guzman,24 we 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. Here, appellant failed to
show that the police officers deviated from the regular performance of their duties. Appellants defense of denial is
weak and self-serving. Unless corroborated by other evidence, it cannot overcome the presumption that the police
officers have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner.
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.25 In this case, the quantum of
evidence necessary to prove appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt had been sufficiently met. Thus, the prosecution
was able to overcome appellants constitutional right to be presumed innocent.1avvphi1
In sum, we find no cogent reason to depart from the decision of the RTC and CA. Gaspar is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 16 March 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 02117.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 139615

May 28, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
AMADEO TIRA and CONNIE TIRA, appellants.
This is an appeal of the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan, Branch 46, finding appellants Amadeo Tira
and Connie Tira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16, in relation to Section 20, Article III of Republic
Act No. 6425, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, sentencing each of them to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering each of them to pay a fine of P1,000.000.2
The Indictment
The appellants Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira were charged in an Information which reads:
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Urdaneta, province of Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in their possession, control and custody the following:
- Three (3) (sic) sachets of shabu
- Six (6) pieces opened sachets of shabu residue
- One (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves weighing 721 grams
- Six disposable lighter
- One (1) roll Aluminum Foil
- Several empty plastics (tea bag)
- Cash money amounting to P12,536.00 in different denominations believed to be proceeds of the contraband.
without first securing the necessary permit/license to possess the same.
CONTRARY to SEC. 8 in relation to Sec. 20 of RA 6425, as amended.3
The Case for the Prosecution4
In the evening of February 24, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog received a verbal instruction from the Chief of Police
Superintendent Wilson R. Victorio to conduct surveillance operations on the house of Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira at
Perez Extension Street because of reported rampant drug activities in the said area. Manibog formed a team composed
of SPO1 Renato Cresencia, PO3 Reynaldo Javonilla, Jr. and PO3 Efren Abad de Vera to conduct the ordered surveillance.
At around 8:00 p.m., the group, clad in civilian clothes, arrived at Perez Extension Street. As they stationed themselves in
the periphery of a store, they observed that more than twenty persons had gone in and out of the Tira residence. They
confronted one of them, and asked what was going on inside the house. The person revealed that Amadeo Tira sold
shabu, and that he was a regular customer. The group went closer to the house and started planning their next move.
They wanted to pose as buyers, but hesitated, for fear of being identified as PNP members. Instead, they stayed there
up to 12:00 midnight and continued observing the place. Convinced that illegal activities were going on in the house, the
policemen returned to the station and reported to P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio. After hearing their report, P/Supt. Victorio
instructed his men to make an affidavit of surveillance preliminary to an application for a search warrant.5

On March 6, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog, PO3 Efren Abad de Vera, SPO1 Renato Cresencia and PO2 Reynaldo Soliven
Javonilla, Jr. executed an Affidavit of Surveillance, alleging, inter alia, that they were members of the Drug Enforcement
Unit of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and that in the evening of February 24, 1998, they confirmed reports of illegal drugrelated activities in the house of the spouses Amadeo and Connie Tira.6 On March 6, 19987 Police Chief Inspector Danilo
Bumatay Datu filed an Application for a Search Warrant in the Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, attaching
thereto the affidavit of surveillance executed by his men and a sketch of the place to be searched.8
Satisfied with the testimonies of SPO3 Manibog, PO3 de Vera, SPO1 Cresencia and PO2 Javonilla, Jr., Judge Aurora A.
Gayapa issued a search warrant commanding the applicants to make an immediate search of the Tira residence at
anytime of the day or night, particularly the first room on the right side, and the two rooms located at Perez south, and
forthwith seize and take possession of the following items:
1. Poor Mans Cocaine known as Shabu;
2. Drug-Usage Paraphernalia; and
3. Weighing scale.9
P/Sr. Inspector Ludivico Bravo, and as head of the team, with SPO3 Cariaga, PO3 Concepcion, Cario, Galima, Villaroya,
Andaya, SPO1 Mario Tajon, SPO1 Asterio Dismaya, SPO1 Renato Cresencia, and PO3 Reynaldo Javonillo were directed to
implement the search warrant.10 They responded and brought Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi to witness the
search.11 At 2:35 p.m. on March 9, 1998, the team proceeded to the Tira residence. The men found Ernesto Tira, the
father of Amadeo, at the porch of the house. They introduced themselves and told Ernesto that they had a warrant
authorizing them to search the premises. Ernesto led them inside. The policemen found the newly awakened Amadeo
inside the first room12 of the house.13 With Barangay Kagawad Conwi and Amadeo Tira, the policemen proceeded to
search the first room to the right (an inner room) and found the following under the bed where Amadeo slept:14
1. 9 pcs. suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride placed in heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
2. roll aluminum foil
3. several empty plastic transparent
4. used and unused aluminum foil15
5. disposable lighters
6. 1 sachet of shabu confiscated from Nelson Tira16
They also found cash money amounting to P12,536 inside a shoulder bag placed on top of the television, in the following
denominations:
1 pc. -P1,000.00 bill
4 pcs. - 500.00 bill
52 pcs. - 100.00 bill
36 pcs. - 50.00 bill
100 pcs. - 20.00 bill

53 pcs. - 10.00 bill

1 pc. - 5.00 bill
1 pc. - 1.00 coin17
The policemen listed the foregoing items they found in the house. Amadeos picture was taken while he was signing the
said certification.18 Ernesto (Amadeos father), also witnessed the certification.
A joint affidavit of arrest was, thereafter, executed by SPO3 Asidelio Manibog, SPO1 Mario C. Tajon, SPO1 Asterio T.
Dismaya, SPO1 Renato M. Cresencia and PO3 Reynaldo S. Javonilla, Jr. for the apprehension of Amadeo Tira and Nelson
Tira who were brought to the police station for custodial investigation. The articles seized were turned over to the PNP
Crime Laboratory, Urdaneta Sub-Office, for examination.19 In turn, a laboratory examination request was made to the
Chief of the Philippine National Police Service-1, Sub-Office, Urdaneta, Pangasinan for the following:
a. Three (3) sachets of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride approximately 0.5 grams;
b. Six (6) opened sachets of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride (SHABU) residue;
c. Twenty-four (4) pieces of dried marijuana leaves sachet; and
d. One (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride confiscated from the
possession of Nelson Tira.20
On March 10, 1998, P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio executed a Compliance/Return of Search Warrant.21
On March 17, 1998, the PNP Crime Laboratory Group in Physical Science Report No. DT-057-98 reported that the test
conducted by Police Superintendent/Chemist Theresa Ann Bugayong-Cid,22 yielded positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) and marijuana. The report contained the following findings:
"A1 to A3, "B1 to B6," "E" POSITIVE to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug.
"C" and "D1 to D4" POSITIVE to the test for marijuana, a prohibited drug.
CONCLUSION:
Specimens A1 to A3, B1 to B6 and E contain methamphetamine hydrochloride (Shabu) and specimens C and D1 to D24
contain marijuana.23
A criminal complaint was filed by P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio against Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira on March 10, 1998 for
violation of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended.24 After finding probable cause, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rufino A.
Moreno filed an Information against the Tira Spouses for illegal possession of shabu and marijuana, in violation of
Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 6425.25 A warrant of arrest was issued against Connie Tira on May 13,
1998. However, when the policemen tried to serve the said warrant, she could not be found in the given address.26 She
was arrested only on October 6, 1998.27
During the trial, the court conducted an ocular inspection of the Tira residence.28
The Case for Accused Amadeo Tira29
Amadeo Tira denied the charge. He testified that he was a furniture delivery boy30 who owned a one-storey bungalow
house with two bedrooms and one masters bedroom. There was also another room which was divided into an outer

and inner room; the latter room had no windows or ventilation. The house stood twenty meters away from Perez
Extension Street in Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and could be reached only by foot.31 He leased the room located at the
western portion to his nephew Chris Tira32 and the latters live-in-partner Gemma Lim for four hundred pesos a
month.33 Chris and Gemma were engaged in the buying and selling of bananas. He denied that there were young men
coming in and out of his house.34
In the afternoon of March 6, 1998, he was in his house sleeping when the policemen barged into his house. He heard a
commotion and went out of the room to see what it was all about, and saw police officers Cresencia, Javonilla and
Bergonia, searching the room of his nephew, Chris Tira. He told them to stop searching so that he could contact his
father, Ernesto, who in turn, would call the barangay captain. The policemen continued with their search. He was then
pulled inside the room and the policemen showed him the items they allegedly found.35
Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi testified that on March 9, 1998, while he was at Calle Perez, Urdaneta, Pangasinan,
Capt. Ludivico Bravo asked to be accompanied to the Tira residence. Capt. Bravo was with at least ten other policemen.
As they parked the car at Calle Perez, the policemen saw a man running towards the direction of the ricefields. Kagawad
Conwi and some of the policemen chased the man, who turned out to be Nelson Tira. One of the policemen pointed to a
sachet of shabu which fell to the ground near Nelson. The policemen arrested him and proceeded to the house of
Amadeo Tira to serve the warrant.36 When they reached the house, the other policemen were waiting. He saw Amadeo
and Connie Tira sitting by the door of the house in the sala. Thereafter, he and the policemen started the search.37 They
searched the first room located at the right side (if facing south),38 and found marijuana, shabu, money and some
paraphernalia.39 An inventory of the items seized was made afterwards, which was signed by Capt. Bravo and Ernesto
Tira.40
Alfonso Gallardo, Amadeos neighbor, testified that he was the one who constructed the Tira residence and that the
house initially had two rooms. The first room was rented out, while the second room was occupied by the Spouses
Amadeo and Connie Tira.41 Subsequently, a divider was placed inside the first room.42 He also testified that his house
was only three (3) meters away from that of the Tiras, and that only a toilet separated their houses.43 He denied that
there were many people going in and out of the Tira residence.44
The Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court rendered judgment on September 24, 1998, finding Amadeo Tira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana and 1.001 gram of shabu. The decretal portion of its decision is herein
quoted:
WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered CONVICTING beyond reasonable doubt accused AMADEO TIRA for Illegal
Possession of Marijuana weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram penalized under Article III, Sections 16
and 20, of Republic Act 6425, known as [the] Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act 7659. The Court
sentences Amadeo Tira to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and a fine of P1,000,000.00.
The amount of P12,536.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the government which forms part of the fine; the marijuana
weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram are hereby forfeited in favor of the government; the disposable
lighter and the aluminum foil are likewise forfeited in favor of the government.
The Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby ordered to prepare the mittimus.
The Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) is hereby ordered to transmit the person of Amadeo Tira
to the National Bilibid Prison with proper escort within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this Order.45
The trial court upheld the validity of Search Warrant No. 3 issued by Judge Aurora Gayapa. It found Amadeos defense,
that the room where the items were seized was rented out to the couple Cris Tira and Gemma Lim, unsubstantiated. It
held that Amadeo, as owner of the house, had control over the room as well as the things found therein and that the
inner room was a secret and practical place to keep marijuana, shabu and related paraphernalia.46

Amadeo appealed the decision.47

The Case Against Connie Tira
After her arrest, Connie filed a motion to quash search warrant,48 alleging that the police officers who applied for the
said warrant did not have any personal knowledge of the reported illegal activities. She contended that the same was
issued in violation of Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, as the judge issued the search warrant without
conducting searching questions and answers, and without attaching the records of the proceedings. Moreover, the
search warrant issued was in the nature of a general warrant, to justify the "fishing expedition" conducted on the
premises.
On October 26, 1998, the presiding judge ordered Judge Aurora A. Gayapa to forward the stenographic notes of the
applicant and the witnesses.49 Connie was arraigned on November 9, 1998, pending the resolution of the motion. She
pleaded not guilty to the charge of illegal possession of shabu and marijuana.50 The trial court thereafter issued an Order
on November 11, 1998, denying the motion to quash.51 It did not give credence to the allegations of Connie Tira, and
found that Judge Gayapa issued the search warrant after conducting searching questions, and in consideration of the
affidavit of witness Enrique Milad.
Connie testified that she was engaged in the business of buying and selling of fruits, while her husband was employed at
the Glasshouse Trading. One of the rooms in their house was occupied by their three boarders, two male persons and
one female.
In the afternoon of March 9, 1998, she and her husband Amadeo were in their house, while their boarders were in their
respective rooms. At 2:30 p.m., she was in the kitchen taking care of her one-year-old child. She had other three
children, aged eight, four, and three, respectively, who were watching television. Her husband Amadeo was sleeping in
one of the rooms. Suddenly, five policemen barged into their house and searched all the rooms. The policemen found
and seized articles in the room occupied by one of their boarders. They arrested Amadeo, and her brother-in-law,
Nelson Tira, and brought them to the police station. The boarders, however, were not arrested.
Joy Fernandez, a neighbor of the Tiras, lived approximately ten meters away from the latter. Since they had no
television, she frequently went to her neighbors house to watch certain programs. In the afternoon of March 9, 1998,
she was at the Tira residence watching "Mirasol," while Connie was in the kitchen nursing her baby. Suddenly, about five
or ten persons ran inside the house and handcuffed Amadeo Tira.52
The Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court found Connie Tira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana and
1.001 gram of shabu. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered CONVICTING beyond reasonable doubt accused CONNIE TIRA for Illegal
Possession of Marijuana weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram penalized under Article III, Section 16
and 20, of Republic Act 6425, known as [the] Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act 7659, the Court
sentences Connie Tira to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and a fine ofP1,000,000.00.
The amount of P12,536.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the government which forms part of the fine; the marijuana
weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram are hereby forfeited in favor of the government; the disposable
lighter and the aluminum foil are, likewise, forfeited in favor of the government.
The Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) is hereby ordered to transmit the person of Connie Tira
to the National Bilibid Prisons with proper escort within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of his Order.53
The trial court did not believe that Connie Tira had no knowledge, control and possession of the shabu and marijuana
found in the first or inner room of their house. It stressed that Connie and Amadeo Tira jointly controlled and possessed

the shabu and marijuana that the policemen found therein. It ratiocinated that it was unusual for a wife not to know the
existence of prohibited drugs in the conjugal abode. Thus, as husband and wife, the accused conspired and confederated
with each other in keeping custody of the said prohibited articles.54The court also held that Connie Tiras flight from
their house after the search was an indication of her guilt. Connie, likewise, appealed the decision.55
The Present Appeal
In their brief, the appellants Amadeo and Connie Tira assigned the following errors committed by the trial court:
I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION
TO PROVE THEIR GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE SEARCH WAS ILLEGALLY MADE.
III
ASSUMING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT AMADEO TIRA IS GUILTY AS CHARGED, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY BETWEEN HIM AND HIS WIFE CONNIE TIRA.56
The Court shall resolve the assigned errors simultaneously as they are interrelated.
The appellants contend that the search conducted by the policemen in the room occupied by Chris and Gemma Lim,
where the articles and substances were found by the policemen, was made in their absence. Thus, the search was made
in violation of Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
SEC. 7. Search of house, room, or premise, to be made in presence of two witnesses. No search of house, room, or any
other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the
absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
The appellants posit that the articles and substances found by the policemen in their house are inadmissible in evidence,
being the fruits of a poisonous tree. Hence, they contend, they should have been acquitted of the crime charged. The
appellants further assert that the prosecution failed to prove that they owned the prohibited drugs, and that the same
were in their possession and control when found by the policemen. They insist that it cannot be presumed that they
were in control and possession of the said substances/articles simply because they owned the house where the same
were found, considering that the room was occupied by Chris Tira and his live-in partner, Gemma Lim.
The appellant Connie Tira avers that she never fled from their house after the policemen had conducted the search.
Neither was she arrested by the policemen when they arrested her husband.
The appeals have no merit.
Contrary to the appellants claim, appellant Amadeo Tira was present when the policemen searched the inner room of
the house. The articles and substances were found under the bed on which the appellant Amadeo Tira slept. The
policemen did not find the said articles and substances in any other room in the house:
Q So when you reached the house of Amadeo Tira at the Tiras compound, you saw the father and you told him
you are implementing the Search Warrant and your group was allowed to enter and you are allowed to search in
the presence of Amadeo Tira?

A Yes, Sir.
PROS. DUMLAO
Q In the course of your search, what did you find?
WITNESS:
A We found out suspected marijuana leaves, Sir.
Q Where, in what particular place did you find?
A Under the bed inside the room of Amadeo Tira, Sir
Q What else did you find aside from marijuana leaves?
A We also find suspected sachet of shabu, Sir.
Q What else?
A Lighter, Sir.
COURT:
Q If that shabu will be shown to you, could you identify the same?
WITNESS:
A Yes, Sir.
Q About the marijuana leaves, if shown to you could you identify the same?
A Yes, Sir.
PROS. DUMLAO:
Q What else did you find out aside from the marijuana leaves, shabu and lighter?

A I have here the list, Sir.

One (1) brick of marijuana
24 pcs. tea bag of marijuana
9 pcs. sachets of suspected "shabu"
6 disposable lighters
1 roll of aluminum foil

several empty plastic; several used

and unused aluminum foil
one (1) sachet of shabu confiscated from Nelson Tira; and
P12,536.00 cash in different denominations proceeds of the contrand (sic).
COURT:
Q Where did you find the money?

A Near the marijuana at the bag, Sir.

Q About the money, could you still identify if shown to you?
A Yes, Sir.
Q When you found shabu, lighter, marijuana, and money, what did you do?
A We marked them, Sir.
Q All of the items?
A Only the marijuana, Sir.
Q What mark did you place?
A My signature, Sir.57

PROS. TOMBOC:

Q And when you were allowed to enter the house, did you notice who was present?
A I noticed the presence of Connie Tira, Sir.
Q When you said Connie Tira, is she the same Connie Tira the accused in this case?
A Yes, Sir, she was taking care of the baby.
Q Who else?
A We also noticed the presence of Amadeo Tira, Sir.
Q What was he doing there?

A He was newly awake, Sir.

Q Upon entering the house, what did you do?
A We entered and searched the first room, Sir.
Q What did you find out?
A Shabu and Marijuana and paraphernalia, Sir.
Q Are you one of those who entered the house?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Can you mention to the Honorable Court those items that you searched in the house of Connie Tira and
Amadeo Tira?
A As per in (sic) our records, we found three (3) sachets containing suspected Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
"Shabu" residue; one (1) brick of suspected dried marijuana leaves weighing more or less 750 grams; twentyfour (24) tea bags containing dried marijuana leaves; six (6) disposable lighter; one (1) roll aluminum foil; several
empty plastics (tea bag); several used and unused aluminum foil; and cash money amounting to P12,536.00 in
different denominations believe[d] to be proceeds of the contraband, Sir.
Q You said you recovered one (1) brick of marijuana leaves, showing to you a (sic) one (1) brick suspected to be
marijuana leaves, is this the one you are referring to?
A Yes, Sir, this is the one.58
Appellant Amadeo Tira was not the only witness to the search; Kagawad Mario Conwi and Ernesto Tira, Amadeos
father, were also present. Ernesto Tira even led the policemen inside the house. This is evidenced not only by the
testimony of Kagawad Conwi, but also by the certification signed by the appellant himself, along with Kagawad Conwi
and Ernesto Tira.59
The trial court rejected the testimony of appellant Amadeo Tira that the inner room searched by the policemen was
occupied by Chris Tira and his girlfriend Gemma Lim with the following encompassing disquisition:
The defense contention that a couple from Baguio City first occupied the first room, the Court is not persuaded
because they did not present said businessmen from Baguio City who were engaged in vegetable business. Secondly, the
same room was rented by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. Chris Tira and Gemma Lim, engaged in banana business, were not
presented in Court. If it were true that Chris Tira and Gemma Lim were the supposed lessees of the room, they should
have been apprehended by the searching party on March 9, 1998, at about 2:30 p.m. There was no proof showing that
Chris Tira and Gemma Lim ever occupied the room, like personal belongings of Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. The defense
did not even show proof showing that Chris Tira reside in the first room, like clothings, toothbrush, soap, shoes and
other accessories which make them the residents or occupants of the room. There were no kitchen plates, spoons,
powder, or soap evidencing that the said room was occupied by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. Amadeo Tira contended that
Chris Tira and Gemma Lim are engaged in banana business. There are no banana stored in the room at the time of the
search and both of them were out of the room at the time of the search. And why did not Amadeo Tira supply the police
officers of the personal identities and address where they could find Chris Tira and Gemma Lim at the time of the search.
If they were banana dealers, they must be selling their banana in the market and they could have pointed them in the
market.60
We are in full accord with the trial court. It bears stressing that the trial court conducted an ocular inspection of the
house of the appellants, and thus, had first hand knowledge of the layout of the house. Besides, the testimony of the

appellant Amadeo Tira, that the inner room was occupied by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim who were not there when the
search was conducted, is belied by the testimony of the appellant Connie Tira that the room was occupied by two male
and one female boarders who were in the room when the policemen searched it. Thus:
Q You said that while taking care of your baby, several policemen barged [sic] your house?

A Yes, Sir.
Q And they proceeded to your room where your husband was sleeping at that time?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And it is in that room where your husband was sleeping and where those articles were taken?
A No, Sir.
Q Where are (sic) those things came (sic) from?
A At the room where my boarders occupied, Sir.
Q So, at that time where were those boarders?
A They were inside their room, Sir.
Q How many of them?
A Two (2) male persons and one woman, Sir.
Q And do you know their whereabout[s], Madam Witness?
A No more, Sir.
Q When did they leave, Madam Witness?
A At that time, they left the house, Sir.
Q They were not investigated by the police?
A No, Sir.61
We agree with the finding of the trial court that the only occupants of the house when the policemen conducted their
search were the appellants and their young children, and that the appellants had no boarders therein.
Before the accused may be convicted of violating Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659,
the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential elements of the crime, viz: (1) the actual
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 or consciously possessed the said drug.62
The essential elements of the crime of possession of regulated drugs are the following: (a) the accused is found in
possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and, (c) the

accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug. This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent
is not an essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus
posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession.
Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused.63 On the other
hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has
the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.64 Exclusive possession or control is not
necessary.65 The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the
contraband is located, is shared with another.66
Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession would
not exonerate the accused.67 Such fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any
reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had knowledge of the
existence and presence of the drug in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drug.68 Since
knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place where he exercises dominion and
control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over
which the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.69
In this case, the prohibited and regulated drugs were found under the bed in the inner room of the house of the
appellants where they also resided. The appellants had actual and exclusive possession and control and dominion over
the house, including the room where the drugs were found by the policemen. The appellant Connie Tira cannot escape
criminal liability for the crime charged simply and merely on her barefaced testimony that she was a plain housewife,
had no involvement in the criminal actuations of her husband, and had no knowledge of the existence of the drugs in
the inner room of the house. She had full access to the room, including the space under the bed. She failed to adduce
any credible evidence that she was prohibited by her husband, the appellant Amadeo Tira, from entering the room,
cleaning it, or even sleeping on the bed. We agree with the findings and disquisition of the trial court, viz:
The Court is not persuaded that Connie Tira has no knowledge, control and possession of the shabu and marijuana
(Exhibits "M," "N," "O" and "P") found in their room. Connie Tira and Amadeo Tira jointly control and possess the shabu
(Exhibits "M" and "N") and marijuana (Exhibits "O" and "P") found in the room of their house. It is unusual for a wife not
to know the existence in their conjugal abode, the questioned shabu and marijuana. The husband and wife (Amadeo and
Connie) conspired and confederated with each other the keeping and custody of said prohibited articles. Both of them
are deemed in possession of said articles in violation of R.A. 6425, Section 8, in relation to Section 20.
The Crimes Committed by the Appellants
The trial court convicted the appellants of violating Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts that the appellants should be convicted of violating Section 8
of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. We do not agree with the trial court and the OSG. We find and so hold that the
appellants are guilty of two separate crimes: (a) possession of regulated drugs under Section 16, in relation to Section
20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for their possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug; and,
(b) violation of Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of the law, for their possession of marijuana, a prohibited drug.
Although only one Information was filed against the appellants, nevertheless, they could be tried and convicted for the
crimes alleged therein and proved by the prosecution. In this case, the appellants were charged for violation of
possession of marijuana and shabu in one Information which reads:
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Urdaneta, province of Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in their possession, control and custody the following:
- Three (3) pieces (sic) sachets of shabu
- Six (6) pieces opened sachets of shabu residue

- One (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves weighing 721 grams

- Twenty-four (24) tea bags of dried marijuana leaves weighing 86.3 grams
- Six [6] disposable lighter
- One (1) roll Aluminum foil
- Several empty plastics (tea bag)
- Cash money amounting to P12,536.00 in different denominations believed to be proceeds of the contraband.
without first securing the necessary permit/license to posses[s] the same.
CONTRARY TO SEC. 8, in relation to Sec. 20 of R.A. 6425, as amended."70
The Information is defective because it charges two crimes. The appellants should have filed a motion to quash the
Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court before their arraignment. They failed to do so.
Hence, under Rule 120, Section 3 of the said rule, the appellants may be convicted of the crimes charged. The said Rule
provides:
SEC. 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. - When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or
information but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may convict him of as many offenses as are
charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out separately the findings of fact and law
in each offense.
The Proper Penalties On the Appellants
The crime of violation of Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for illegal possession of 807.3 grams of
marijuana, a prohibited drug, is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Considering that there are no qualifying
circumstances, the appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code and are ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, the imposable penalty of possession of a regulated drug,
less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of the
regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty shall be as follows:
QUANTITY IMPOSABLE PENALTY
Less than one (1) gram to 49.25 grams prision correccional
49.26 grams to 98.50 grams prision mayor
98.51 grams to 147.75 grams reclusion temporal
147.76 grams to 199 grams reclusion perpetua
Considering that the regulated drug found in the possession of the appellants is only 1.001 grams, the imposable penalty
for the crime is prision correccional. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellants are sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of from four (4) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor in its medium period as minimum, to
three (3) years of prision correccional in its medium period as maximum, for violation of Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425,
as amended.

IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, appellants Amadeo and Connie Tira are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, and ORDERED to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00. The said appellants are, likewise, found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, and are sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of from Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of arresto mayor in its medium period as minimum, to
Three (3) years of prision correccional, in its medium period, as maximum.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.