Ombudsman Case Alias Name

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests
Outline by Fiscal Victoria C. Garcia
REVISED PENAL CODE: BOOK TWO
TITLE FOUR (ARTICLES 161-187): Crimes Against Public Interest
CESARIO URSUA v COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 112170 | April 10, 1996
TICKLER: Ombudsman Case, messenger of lawyer
DOCTRINE: Hence, the use of a fictitious name or a different name belonging to

another person in a single instance without any sign or indication that the user intends
to be known by this name in addition to his real name from that day forth does not fall
within the prohibition contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended.
FACTS: Petitioner Cesario Ursua was a Community Environment and Natural

Resources Officer assigned in Kidapawan, Cotabato. On 9 May 1989 the Provincial
Governor of Cotabato requested the Office of the Ombudsman in Manila to conduct
an investigation on a complaint for bribery, dishonesty, abuse of authority and giving
of unwarranted benefits by petitioner and other officials of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. The complaint was initiated by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Cotabato through a resolution advising the Governor to report the
involvement of petitioner and others in the illegal cutting of mahogany trees and
hauling of illegally-cut logs in the area.
On 1 August 1989 Atty. Francis Palmones, counsel for petitioner, wrote the Office
of the Ombudsman in Davao City requesting that he be furnished copy of the
complaint against petitioner. Atty. Palmones then asked his client Ursua to take his
letter-request to the Office of the Ombudsman because his law firms messenger,
Oscar Perez, had to attend to some personal matters. Before proceeding to the Office
of the Ombudsman petitioner talked to Oscar Perez and told him that he was reluctant
to personally ask for the document since he was one of the respondents before the
Ombudsman. However, Perez advised him not to worry as he could just sign his
(Perez) name if ever he would be required to acknowledge receipt of the complaint.
When petitioner arrived at the Office of the Ombudsman in Davao City he was
instructed by the security officer to register in the visitors logbook.Instead of writing
down his name petitioner wrote the name Oscar Perez after which he was told to
proceed to the Administrative Division for the copy of the complaint he needed. He
handed the letter of Atty. Palmones to the Chief of the Administrative Division, Ms.
Loida Kahulugan, who then gave him a copy of the complaint, receipt of which he
acknowledged by writing the name Oscar Perez.
Before petitioner could leave the premises he was greeted by an acquaintance,
Josefa Amparo, who also worked in the same office. They conversed for a while then
he left. When Loida learned that the person who introduced himself as Oscar Perez
was actually petitioner Cesario Ursua, a customer of Josefa Amparo in her gasoline
station, Loida reported the matter to the Deputy Ombudsman who recommended that
CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
Acuesta, Baccay, Bajande, College
Bustillos, of Law Manila
Cabuyadao, Cantos, Chua Cheng,
San Beda College of Law Manila Claudio, Cruz, Dieta, Dimaporo, Domantay, Eloriaga, Favoreal, Feraren,
Frando, Gementiza, Intal, Leano, Lezama, Magdamo, Magday,
Marohombsar, Ocampo, Oro, Padua, Pallon, Panotes, Parojinog, Penaflor,
Roque, Quintos, Sale, Salor, Sanchez, Santos, Sioson, Soliva, Uy
petitioner be accordingly charged.

On 18 December 1990, after the prosecution had completed the presentation of
its evidence, petitioner without leave of court filed a demurrer to evidence alleging that
the failure of the prosecution to prove that his supposed alias was different from his
registered name in the local civil registry was fatal to its cause. Petitioner argued that
no document from the local civil registry was presented to show the registered name
of accused which according to him was a condition sine qua non for the validity of his
conviction.
CRIME CHARGED: Violation of Sec. 1 of C.A. No. 142 as amended by R. A. No.
6085
RTC: GUILTY as charged. Prison term of one (1) year and one (1) day of prision
correccional minimum as minimum, to four (4) years of prision correccional medium
as maximum, with all the accessory penalties provided for by law, and to pay a fine of
P4,000.00 plus costs.
CA: AFFIRMED the ruling of the RTC. Modifying the penalty to an indeterminate
term of one (1) year as minimum to three (3) years as maximum and a fine of
P5,000.00.
Argument of Defense: He claims that he has never been known as Oscar Perez and
that he only used such name on one occasion and it was with the express consent of
Oscar Perez himself. It is his position that an essential requirement for a conviction
under C.A. No. 142 as amended by R. A. No. 6085 has not been complied with when
the prosecution failed to prove that his supposed alias was different from his
registered name in the Registry of Births.
ISSUE: Is accused guilty of violating Sec. 1 of C.A. 142 as amended by R. A. No.

6085?
RULING: NO. Clearly therefore an alias is a name or names used by a person or
intended to be used by him publicly and habitually usually in business transactions in
addition to his real name by which he is registered at birth or baptized the first time or
substitute name authorized by a competent authority. A mans name is simply the
sound or sounds by which he is commonly designated by his fellows and by which
they distinguish him but sometimes a man is known by several different names and
these are known as aliases. Hence, the use of a fictitious name or a different name
belonging to another person in a single instance without any sign or indication that the
user intends to be known by this name in addition to his real name from that day forth
does not fall within the prohibition contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended. This is so
in the case at bench.
It is not disputed that petitioner introduced himself in the Office of the
Ombudsman as Oscar Perez, which was the name of the messenger of his lawyer
who should have brought the letter to that office in the first place instead of
petitioner. He did so while merely serving the request of his lawyer to obtain a copy of
the complaint in which petitioner was a respondent. There is no question then that
4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
Oscar Perez is not an alias name of petitioner.There is no evidence showing that he

had used or was intending to use that name as his second name in addition to his real
name. The use of the name Oscar Perez was made by petitioner in an isolated
transaction where he was not even legally required to expose his real identity. For,
even if he had identified himself properly at the Office of the Ombudsman, petitioner
would still be able to get a copy of the complaint as a matter of right, and the Office of
the Ombudsman could not refuse him because the complaint was part of public
records hence open to inspection and examination by anyone under the proper
circumstances.
The confusion and fraud in business transactions which the anti-alias law and its
related statutes seek to prevent are not present here as the circumstances are
peculiar and distinct from those contemplated by the legislature in enacting C.A. No.
142 as amended. Moreover, as C.A. No. 142 is a penal statute, it should be construed
strictly against the State and in favor of the accused.
DECISION: The questioned decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the
Regional Trial Court of Davao City is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and petitioner
CESARIO URSUA is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v JOSEPH EJERCITO-ESTRADA

G.R. No. 164368-69 | April 2, 2009
TICKLER: Jose Velarde, Alias.
DOCTRINE: An alias is a name used by a person or intended to be used by him

publicly and habitually usually in business transactions in addition to his real name
by which he is registered at birth or baptized the first time or substitute name
authorized by a competent authority. There must be a sign or indication that the user
intends to be known by the alias in addition to his real name from that day forth
such to fall within the prohibition contained in C.A. No. 142. The law of libel that
mere communication to a third person is publicity does not apply to violations of CA
No. 142. the required publicity in the use of alias is more than mere communication to
a third person; the use of the alias, to be considered public, must be made
openly, or in an open manner or place, or to cause it to become generally
known.
FACTS: Along with his plunder charges, a separate information was filed against
Joseph Estrada for illegal use alias under Commonwealth Act 142. The information
alleged that on or about 04 February 2000, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto,
to conceal his ill-gotten wealth and identity as President, he represented himself as
“JOSE VELARDE” in several transactions which is neither his registered name or
baptismal name, in signing documents with Equitable PCI Bank and/or other
corporate entities.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
Evidences presented by the people consisted of:
1. Testimonies of Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) officers Clarissa

Ocampo (Ocampo) and Atty. Manuel Curato (Curato) who commonly declared that on
February 4, 2000, Estrada opened a numbered trust account with PCIB and signed as
Jose Velarde in the account opening documents; both Ocampo and Curato also
testified that Aprodicio Lacquian (Chief of Staff) and Fernando Chua (Lawyer-Friend)
were present on that occasion.
2. Testimony of PCIB-Greenhills Branch Manager Teresa Barcelan, who declared that

a certain Baby Ortaliza (Ortaliza) transacted several times with her; that Ortaliza
deposited several checks under the account name Jose Velarde. (Marked as exhibits
Quintuple L up to W) along with documents duly identified by witnesses showing that
Lucena Ortaliza was employed in the Office of the Vice President and, later on, in the
Office of the President when Estrada occupied these positions and when deposits
were made to the Jose Velarde Savings.
Estrada filed a demurrer averring that: witnesses particulary, Ocampo and Curato,
saw movant use the name “Jose Velarde” only on one occasion (04 February 2000)
and there was no proof of public and habitual use as the banking documents are
confidential by nature.
CRIME CHARGED: Illegal use of alias under Commonwealth Act 142
SANDIGANBAYAN: DISMISSED the case.
Three salient points:
1. The coverage of Estradas indictment are those relating to what is described in the
Information i.e., the testimonies and documents on the opening of Trust Account C-
163 on February 4, 2000. The Sandiganbayan reasoned out that the use of the
disjunctive or between on or about 04 February 2000 and sometime prior or
subsequent thereto means that the act/s allegedly committed on February 4, 2000
could have actually taken place prior to or subsequent thereto; the use of the
conjunctive was simply the prosecutions procedural tool to guard against any
variance between the date stated in the Information and that proved during the trial in
a situation in which time was not a material ingredient of the offense; it does not mean
and cannot be read as a roving commission that includes acts and/or
events separate and distinct from those that took place on the single date on or
about 04 February 2000 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto.
1. The People’s failure to present evidence that proved Estradas commission of the
offense. It ruled that there is an illegal use of alias within the context of CA 142 only if
the use of the alias is public and habitual. In Estradas case, the Sandiganbayan
noted, the application of the principles was not as simple because of the
complications resulting from the nature of the transaction involved the alias was used

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
in connection with the opening of a numbered trust account made during the
effectivity of R.A. No. 1405, as amended, and prior to the enactment of Republic R.A.
No. 9160.
Estrada did not publicly use the alias Jose Velarde:
A. Estradas use of the alias Jose Velarde in his dealings with Dichavez and
Ortaliza after February 4, 2000 is not relevant in light of the conclusion that the
acts imputed to Estrada under the Information were the act/s committed
on February 4, 2000 only. Additionally, the phrase, Estrada did represent himself as
Jose Velarde in several transactions, standing alone, violates Estradas right to be
informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation, because it is very general and
vague. This phrase is qualified and explained by the succeeding phrase and use and
employ the said alias Jose Velarde which is neither his registered name at birth nor
his baptismal name, in signing documents with Equitable PCI Bank and/or other
corporate entities.
B. The Sandiganbayan rejected the application of the principle in the law of libel that
mere communication to a third person is publicity; it reasoned out that that the
definition of publicity is not limited to the way it is defined under the law on
libel; additionally, the application of the libel law definition is onerous to the
accused and is precluded by the ruling in Ursua that CA No. 142, as a penal
statute, should be construed strictly against the State and favorably for the
accused.
C. The Sandiganbayan further found that the intention not to be publicly known by
the name Jose Velarde is shown by the nature of a numbered account a
perfectly valid banking transaction at the time Trust Account C-163 was
opened. The opening, too, of a numbered trust account, the Sandiganbayan further
ruled, did not impose on Estrada the obligation to disclose his real identity the
obligation R.A. No. 6713 imposes is to file under oath a statement of assets and
liabilities.
2. The effect of the enactment of R.A. No. 9160, that is, the absolute prohibition
against the use of anonymous accounts, accounts under fictitious names, and all
other similar accounts, is a legislative acknowledgment that a gaping hole previously
existed in our laws that allowed depositors to hide their true identities. The
Sandiganbayan noted that the prohibition was lifted from Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
(BSP) Circular No. 251 dated July 7, 2000 another confirmation that the opening of a
numbered trust account was perfectly legal when it was opened on February 4, 2000.
ISSUE: Is Estrada liable for illegal use alias?
RULING: NO. Under the Ursua v. CA case, an alias is a name used by a person or
intended to be used by him publicly and habitually usually in business transactions
in addition to his real name by which he is registered at birth or baptized the first time

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
or substitute name authorized by a competent authority. There must be, in the words
of Ursua, a sign or indication that the user intends to be known by this name (the
alias) in addition to his real name from that day forth such to fall within the prohibition
contained in C.A. No. 142 as amended. The law of libel that mere communication to a
third person is publicity does not apply to violations of CA No. 142.
Our close reading of Ursua particularly, the requirement that there be intention by the
user to be culpable and the historical reasons we cited above tells us that the required
publicity in the use of alias is more than mere communication to a third person; the
use of the alias, to be considered public, must be made openly, or in an open
manner or place, or to cause it to become generally known. In order to be held
liable for a violation of CA No. 142, the user of the alias must have held himself out as
a person who shall publicly be known under that other name.
In other words, the intent to publicly use the alias must be manifest. To our mind, the
presence of Lacquian and Chua when Estrada signed as Jose Velarde and opened
Trust Account No. C-163 does not necessarily indicate his intention to be publicly
known henceforth as Jose Velarde. In relation to Estrada, Lacquian and Chua
were not part of the public who had no access to Estradas privacy and to the
confidential matters that transpired in Malacanang where he sat as President;
Lacquian was the Chief of Staff with whom he shared matters of the highest
and strictest confidence, while Chua was a lawyer-friend bound by his oath of
office and ties of friendship to keep and maintain the privacy and secrecy of his
affairs. Thus, Estrada could not be said to have intended his signing as Jose Velarde
to be for public consumption by the fact alone that Lacquian and Chua were also
inside the room at that time. The same holds true for Estradas alleged
representations with Ortaliza and Dichavez, assuming the evidence for these
representations to be admissible. All of Estradas representations to these people
were made in privacy and in secrecy, with no iota of intention of publicity.
DECISION: Petition DENIED for lack of merit.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
TITLE FIVE: Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v PABLITO ANDAYA

G.R. No. 183700 | October 13, 2014
TICKLER: Confidential informant was not presented as witness.
DOCTRINE: To secure the conviction of the accused who is charged with the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs as defined and punished by Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002), the State must establish the
concurrence of the following elements, namely:
(a) that the transaction or sale took place between the accused and the poseur-
buyer; and
(b) that the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in
court as evidence of the corpus delicti.
FACTS: In the evening of December 16, 2002, a police asset conducting surveillance
of Pablito Andaya arrived at the police station where police officers Alea, Lopez,
Mercado, and Marasigan were stationed. Said asset reported that he had arranged to
buy shabu from Pablito. A team was constituted to conduct a buy-bust. Two pieces of
P100.00 bills both duly marked “X” were recorded in the police blotter. Alea gave the
marked bills to the asset. Upon reaching the designated place, the team members
alighted from their vehicles and occupied different positions where they could see and
observe the asset. The asset knocked on the door of Pablito’s house. Pablito came
out. Pablito and the asset talked briefly. The asset gave Pablito the marked money.
The asset received something from appellant. The pre-arranged signal signifying
consummation of the transaction was given. The team members approached Pablito
and the asset, introduced themselves as police officers and arrested accused. He
was brought to the police station. The arrival of the team was recorded in the police
blotter. The merchandise handed by accused to the asset was sent to the Regional
Crime Laboratory in Camp Vicente Lim. The specimen was positive for
methampethamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.
SPO2 Lopez received the person of the accused, the marked money and the item
accused handed to the asset. Lopez prepared the request for laboratory examination.
He also prepared the documents required for filing of the case with the Public
Prosecutor. SPO2 Danilo Mercado recorded the marked bills in the police blotter
before the buy-bust. Upon the team’s return, the marked money and the merchandise
from accused were turned over to SPO2 Mercado. He prepared a complaint sheet.
Thereafter, he turned over accused and the evidence to the Police Investigator. SPO4
Protacio Marasigan received a written request for laboratory examination of the
subject merchandise. He brought the request to the crime laboratory in Laguna. Jupri
Delantar, a Forensic Chemical Officer in Camp Vicente Lim conducted the
examination. The merchandise tested positive for shabu.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
Defense: Andaya denied the charge. He stated that on the said evening, he was at
home watching TV with his family when police officers arrived. When he opened the
door, a police officer poked his gun at him. Somebody else held a long firearm.
Pablito was handcuffed and brought outside. He refused to negotiate and asked for a
warrant. The policemen searched the house, turned over the beddings and uncovered
their furniture. No gun nor shabu was found. Pablito was brought to the police station
and detained. After three days he was released. He received a subpoena from the
Public Prosecutor afterwards.
CRIME CHARGED: Violation of Section 5 (Sale, Trading, Administration,

Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs) of RA
9165
RTC: CONVICTED Andaya as charged, penalty of life imprisonment
Basis: The buy-bust operation is supported by the police blotter wherein not only was
the departure and arrival of the operatives have been duly recorded but also the two
(2) pieces of marked one hundred peso bills. The arrest of the accused was made
after the police asset had given the prearranged signal outside his house. The
marked money was recovered from the very hand of the accused while the deck of
crystalline substances given to the asset upon the latter’s handing over to the
accused the marked money has been turned over to the police by the asset. The
crystalline substance when examined at the police crime laboratory was found to
contain a dangerous and prohibited drug.
CA: AFFIRMED in toto the conviction.
ISSUE: Did the CA err in affirming the conviction of Andaya?
RULING: YES. In every criminal prosecution, it is the State, and no other, that bears
the burden of proving the illegal sale of the dangerous drug beyond reasonable
doubt. This responsibility imposed on the State accords with the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence until and
unless the presumption of innocence in his favor has been overcome by sufficient and
competent evidence.
Proof of the transaction must be credible and complete. Here, the confidential
informant was not a police officer. He was designated to be the poseur-buyer himself.
It is notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested Andaya on the basis of
the prearranged signal from the poseur-buyer. The prearranged signal signified to the
members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had been consummated between
the poseur-buyer and Andaya. However, the State did not present the confidential
informant/poseur-buyer during the trial to describe how exactly the transaction
between him and Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue against
that, except that none of the members of the buy-bust team had directly witnessed the
transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur-buyer due to their being

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
positioned at a distance from the poseur-buyer and Andaya at the moment of the
supposed transaction.
The CA did not find anything wrong or odd in the nonpresentation of the poseur-buyer
as a witness against the accused. In fact, it justified the nonpresentation as follows:
Appellant also questioned the failure of the prosecution to present the informer. The
court is aware of the considerations why confidential informants are usually not
presented by the prosecution. There is the need to hide their identity and preserve
their invaluable service to the police. In People v. Lopez, it was held that there was no
need for the prosecution to present the confidential informer as the poseur-buyer
himself positively identified the accused as the one who sold to him one deck of
“shabu.” The trial court then properly relied on the testimonies of the police officers
despite the decision of the prosecution not to present the informer.
The foregoing justification by the CA was off-tangent and does not help the State’s
cause. It is obvious that the rulings cited to support the need to conceal the
confidential informants’ identities related to the confidential informants who gave
information against suspected drug dealers. The presentation of the confidential
informants as witnesses for the Prosecution in those instances could be excused
because there were poseur-buyers who directly incriminated the accused. In this
case, however, it was different, because the poseur-buyer and the confidential
informant were one and the same. Without the poseur-buyer’s testimony, the State
did not credibly incriminate Andaya.
Indeed, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 punishes “any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any
and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall
act as a broker in any of such transactions.” Under the law, selling was any act “of
giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical
whether for money or any other consideration” while delivering was any act “of
knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any
means, with or without consideration.”17 Given the legal characterizations of the acts
constituting the offense charged, the members of the buy-bust team could not
incriminate Andaya by simply declaring that they had seen from their positions the
poseur-buyer handing something to Andaya who, in turn, gave something to the
poseur-buyer. If the transaction was a sale, it was unwarranted to infer from such
testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team that what the poseur-buyer handed
over were the marked P100.00 bills and that what Andaya gave to the poseur-buyer
was the shabu purchased.
Another mark of suspicion attending the evidence of guilt related to the reliance by the
members of the buy-bust team on the prearranged signal from the poseur-buyer
because:
1. The record does not show what the prearranged signal consisted of;

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
2. The reliance on the supposed signal to establish the consummation of the

transaction between the poseur-buyer and Andaya was unwarranted because
the unmitigatedly hearsay character of the signal rendered it entirely bereft of
trustworthiness.
DECISION: WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision
promulgated on February 11, 2008; ACQUITS accused Pablito Andaya y Reano for
failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his immediate
release from confinement at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v GERARDO ENUMERABLE

G.R. No. 207993 | January 21, 2015
TICKLER: 3 sachets; Petron; No chain of custody.
DOCTRINE: It is settled that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drug, not
only must the essential elements of the offense be proved beyond reasonable doubt,
but likewise the identity of the prohibited drug. Necessarily, the prosecution must
establish that the substance seized from the accused is the same substance offered
in court as exhibit. In this regard, the prosecution must sufficiently prove the unbroken
chain of custody of the confiscated illegal drug.
FACTS: A buy-bust operation was conducted by the Batangas City Police Station on
May 27, 2004 at 11:30 am at the Petron Gasoline Station in Lipa. Using 2 pieces of
marked ₱500.00 bills and boodle money to make the appearance of about ₱24,000.00,
police asset PO3 Edwalberto Villas who posed as a buyer transacted with the alias
Gerry. After the exchange of the marked money and the black plastic box containing 3
plastic sachets of shabu (weighing 9.88 grams) alias Gerry, later identified as Gerardo
Enumerable, was placed under arrest. The marked money was recovered from his
possession by PO3 Villas who also took custody of the specimen shabu which he
marked EMV 1 to EMV 3. The 3 sachets of shabu were turned over to the Batangas
Provincial Crime Laboratory (BPCL) on May 27, 2004 at 5:25 p.m. However, the
specimens were transferred to Regional Crime Laboratory (RCL) in Calamba City on
June 4, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. Forensic Chemist Huelgas found the specimens positive for
the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, the authenticity
and genuineness of which were admitted by accused during the pre-trial.
CRIME CHARGED: Violation of Sec 5 of RA 9165
RTC: Found accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of as principal by direct

participation of the crime charged. Accused transferred from the BJMP Lipa City to the
National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City.
CA: AFFIRMED conviction. CA held that the testimony of PO3 Villas identifying the 3

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
plastic sachets of shabu as the same ones seized from Enumerable rendered
insignificant appellant’s allegation that PO3 Villas did not immediately put markings on
the 3 sachets of shabu at the place of arrest. The CA further ruled that the failure of the
arresting officers to conduct a physical inventory and to take photographs of the seized
items is not fatal as long as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved, as in this case.
ISSUE: Did the prosecution establish the identity and integrity of the confiscated
illegal drug?
RULING: NO. While appellant waived the presentation of evidence for his defense,
he disputes the identity and integrity of the illegal drug which is the corpus delicti of
the offense charged against him. It is settled that in prosecutions for illegal sale of
dangerous drug, not only must the essential elements of the offense be proved
beyond reasonable doubt, but likewise the identity of the prohibited drug. Necessarily,
the prosecution must establish that the substance seized from the accused is the
same substance offered in court as exhibit. In this regard, the prosecution must
sufficiently prove the unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated illegal drug. While
this Court recognizes substantial adherence to the requirements of R.A. No. 9165 and
its implementing rules and regulations, still, police officers must present justifiable
reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items had been preserved. In this case, there was a glaring gap in the
custody of the illegal drug. There was no evidence presented how the confiscated
sachets of shabu were stored, preserved or labeled nor who had custody prior to their
delivery to the RCL and their subsequent presentation before the trial court.
Based on his testimony, it was clear that PO3 Villas had no personal knowledge on
(1) how the illegal drugs were delivered and who delivered the drugs from the BPCL
to the RCL; (2) who received the drugs in the RC L; and (3) who had custody of the
drugs from 27 May 2004 to 3 June 2004 until their presentation before the trial court.
The testimony of PO3 Villas merely attests to the existence of the Memorandum from
the Chief of the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory to the Regional Crime
Laboratory, a piece of document in which he had no participation in the preparation or
execution. While Enumerable admitted during the pre-trial the authenticity and due
execution of the Chemistry Report, this admission merely affirms the existence of the
specimen and the request for laboratory examination and the results thereof.
Enumerable's admission does not relate to the issue of chain of custody. Since the
failure of the prosecution to establish every link in the chain of custody of the illegal
drug gravely compromised its identity and integrity, which illegal drug is the corpus
delicti of the offense charged against appellant, his acquittal is therefore in order.
DECISION: WHEREFORE, we GRANT the appeal and ACQUIT appellant Gerardo

Enumerable based on reasonable doubt and we ORDER his immediate release from
detention.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v FERNANDO RANCHE HAVANA

G.R. No. 198450 | January 11, 2016
TICKLER: Chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs.
DOCTRINE: Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated

prohibited drugs and related items are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability
of the evidence to be presented against the accused. Their observance is the key to
the successful prosecution of illegal possession or illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
FACTS: A civilian informant, one "Droga", went to Police Station 10, Punta Princesa,
Cebu City and reported to the duty officer SPO1 Espenido that the appellant was
actively engaged in the illegal drug trade at Sitio Mangga, Punta Princesa, Cebu City.
SPO1 Espenido immediately assembled a buy-bust team, with him as the team
leader, the civilian asset and with PO2 Enriquez, SPO1 Cañete, and PO2 Nuñez as
back-up. The police team designated the unnamed "civilian informant" as poseur-
buyer and provided him with a P100.00 marked money bill to be used for the purpose
of buying shabu from appellant.
When the police team reached the target area, the "civilian informant" went to the
house of appellant and called the latter. Hidden from view, some 15 meters away
from the house, the back-up operatives, PO2 Enriquez and SPO1 Cañete, saw the
civilian informant talking with the appellant. Not long after, they saw the "civilian
informant" handling over the marked P100.00 bill to the appellant, who in exchange
gave to the former a plastic pack containing 0.03 gram white crystalline substance
which these two suspected as shabu. The "civilian informant" then placed a face
towel on his left shoulder to signal that the sale had been consummated.
SPO1 Espenido and his two companions rushed towards the "civilian informant" and
the appellant and arrested the latter after apprising him of his constitutional rights.
SPO1 Espenido recovered the P100.00 marked money from the appellant while the
plastic pack was given by the "civilian informant" to SPO1 Espenido.
The appellant was taken to the police station for investigation. The P100.00 marked
money and the plastic pack containing the suspected shabu were turned over to
SPO2 Nuñez who marked the plastic pack with "FA" the initials of herein appellant.
He then prepared a letter requesting for examination of the item seized from the
appellant addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory. PCI Salinas, a forensic chemist of
the PNP Crime Laboratory of Brgy. Apas, Cebu City, testified that he conducted a
laboratory examination of the recovered specimen that yielded "positive result for the
presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CRIME CHARGED: Illegal sale of dangerous drugs (SHABU)

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
RTC: The RTC found appellant GUILTY as charged and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
CA: The CA UPHELD the RTC ruling. The appellate court held that the non-
submission of the pre-operation report to the PDEA did not at all render the buy-bust
operation irregular. What it held as important is that the police officers were able to
call the PDEA prior to the operation. The CA was convinced that all the elements of
the offense charged were established by the prosecution. The CA held that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated item had been preserved,
despite the fact that the police officers did not strictly adhere to the procedure
outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165 which governs the so-called "buy-bust"
operations. It held that the police officers regularly performed their functions.
ISSUE: Was adherence to the chain of custody rule established?
RULING: NO. 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 in 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 the 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 readily 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 obtains in
case the evidence is susceptible of 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 or
custody rule.
The prosecution utterly failed to establish convincingly the chain of custody of the
alleged seized plastic pack subject matter hereof. In fact only PO2 Enriquez and
SPO1 Cañete testified in respect to the identity of the alleged evidence. However,
from their testimonies, the prosecution was not able to account for the linkages
in the chain while the plastic pack was not or no longer in their respective
possession.
While both witnesses testified that after the sale and apprehension of the appellant,

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
the poseur-buyer turned over the subject pack of shabu to their team leader SPO1
Espenido, there is no record as to what happened after the turn-over. SPO1
Espenido to whom the specimen was allegedly surrendered by the poseur-
buyer was not presented in court to identify the person to whom it was given
thereafter and the condition thereof while it was in his possession and control.
The prosecution did not bother to offer any explanation for his non-presentation as a
witness. This is a significant gap in the chain of custody of the illegal stuff.
The prosecution’s cause is also marred by confusion and uncertainty regarding

the possessor of the pack of shabu when it was brought to the police station.
By PO2 Enriquez’s account, it was SPO2 Nuñez who was in possession of the
same – an account which is at loggerheads with the claim of SPO1 Cañete that he
was in custody and possession thereof and that he personally brought the same to
the police station. These police officers cannot seem to agree on a point over which
there could hardly be a disagreement. It must be observed that SPO2 Nuñez who
had supposedly taken custody of the substance following PO2 Enriquez’s account
was likewise not presented in court to testify. Worse, the prosecution did not even try
to reconcile this inconsistency. Moreover, the prosecution failed to show how,
when and from whom SPO2 Nuñez or SPO1 Cañete received the evidence.
There was no evidence on how they came into possession of the pack
of shabu. Again, this is a clear missing link in the chain of custody of the specimen
after it left the hands of SPO1 Espenido.
Take note that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the
person to whom the specimen was given at the police station. All that has been
said is that the investigator, SPO2 Nuñez, marked the specimen. But this statement
did not necessarily mean that he was the same officer who received the same from
either PO2 Enriquez or SPO1 Cañete. In fact, there is a total want of evidence
tending to prove that fact. It must be recalled that SPO2 Nuñez did not take the
witness stand to identify the specific marking on the alleged specimen; neither did the
prosecution adduce conclusive proof as to the author of the handwriting affixed
therein and admit the same as his own handwriting.
While the chain of custody should ideally be perfect [and unbroken], in reality it
is not, ‘as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. As such,
what is of utmost importance "is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt
or innocence of the accused. In the case at bench, this Court finds it exceedingly
difficult to believe that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug have been
properly preserved by the apprehending officers. The inexplicable failure of the
police officers to testify as to what they did with the alleged drug while in their
respective possession resulted in a breach or break in the chain of custody of
the drug.
DECISION: CA is reversed and decision is set aside. Fernando Ranche Havana

a.k.a. Fernando Ranche Abana is hereby ACQUITTED of the charge, his guilt not

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
having been established beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v SONIA BERNEL NUARIN

G.R. No. 188698 | July 22, 2015
TICKLER: Violation of Sections 53 and 11, RA 9165.
DOCTRINES: In securing or sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the intrinsic
worth of these pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus
delicti, must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement
necessarily arises from the illegal drug’s unique characteristic that renders it indistinct,
not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either
by accident or otherwise.
FACTS: Nuarin is charged with violation of Sections 53 and 11, respectively, of R.A.
No. 9165.
Prosecution’s version is that testified that on February 2, 2003, members of the

District Drug Enforcement Group of the Central Police District, composed of PO1
Manalo, PO1 Mutia, PO3 Cleto Montenegro, PO3 Datul, and PO3 Bautista went to
Barangay Old Balara, Quezon City, to conduct a buy-bust operation against the
appellant. When they arrived there at around 12:30 p.m., the informant introduced
PO1 Manalo to the appellant. PO1 Manalo told the appellant that he wanted to buy
₱100.00 worth of shabu. The appellant handed a sachet containing white crystalline
substances to PO1 Manalo who, in turn, gave him the marked money. Immediately
after, PO1 Manalo made the prearranged signal to his companions and arrested
Nuarin.
The defense version is that on February 2, 2003, at about 12:30 in the afternoon,
accused-appellant was at home with her son John Bernel and friends Jan Ticson and
Rebecca Agana. They had just finished eating lunch and accused appellant was,
then, washing the dishes when she heard a knock on the door. At the door were PO3
Cleto Montenegro, PO1 Filnar Mutia and two others. They were looking for a certain
Bogart. When accused-appellant said that she did not know where Bogart was, the
police officers entered the house and searched the premises for about an hour. When
the search did not yield anything incriminatory, the police brought accused-appellant
and the other occupants of the house to Camp Karingal In Quezon City. There, the
police extorted ₱40,000.00 in exchange of accused-appellant’s release. When the
money was not produced, accused-appellant was charged by the police officers.
CRIME CHARGED: Violation of Sections 53 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165
RTC: GUILTY as charged.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
CA: AFFIRMED conviction.
In her brief on appeal, the appellant contends that the prosecution failed to establish
that a buy-bust operation took place. She also maintained that the chain of custody
over the seized shabu had been broken. For the State, the office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) counters that the prosecution was able to establish that the sale of
shabu between the appellant and the poseur-buyer was consummated. It also
maintained that the non-presentation in court of the original marked money, the
forensic chemist, the informant, and the original marked money was not fatal in the
prosecution for illegal drugs.
ISSUE: Was the chain of custody requirement of RA 9165 complied with?
RULING: NO. A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires more
than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each element of the crime:
the identities of the buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and the
existence of the corpus delicti.
In securing or sustaining a conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the intrinsic worth of these
pieces of evidence, especially the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, must
definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily arises from
the illegal drug’s unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable,
and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or
otherwise.
Thus, to remove any doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence
must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug
actually recovered from the accused-appellant. It is in this respect that the
prosecution failed.
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A.
No. 9165, defines chain of custody as "the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs
or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt
in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction."
A crucial step in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other
related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. "Marking" means
the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and
signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked
because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.
The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused
until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing
switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.
In the present case, the prosecution’s lone witness, PO1 Manalo, gave conflicting
statements as to who marked the seized sachets.
We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the initial markings as
reference. If at the first instance or opportunity, there are already doubts on who really
placed the markings on the seized sachets (or if the markings were made in
accordance with the required procedure), serious uncertainty hangs over the
identification of the seized shabu that the prosecution introduced into evidence.
In addition, the records do not show that the sachets were marked in the presence of
the appellant. In People v. Sanchez, we explained 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 29and on allegations of robbery or theft.
Significantly, PO1 Manalo and PO1 Mutia did not even mention that they marked the
seized plastic sachet in their Joint Affidavit of Arrest.
As to the subsequent links in the chain of custody, PO1 Manalo stated that he handed
the seized plastic sachets to the desk officer at the police station. Curiously, the
identity of this desk officer was never revealed during trial. This is particularly
significant since no reference was ever made as to the person who submitted the
seized specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. PO1 Manalo, in fact,
testified that he could not remember the person who brought the seized plastic
sachets to the crime laboratory. Notably, the specimen was forwarded to the crime
laboratory only at 10:35 p.m. It was not clear, therefore, who had temporary custody
of the seized items when they left the hands of PO1 Manalo until they were brought to
the crime laboratory for qualitative analysis.
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied in Section
21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, however, was not shown to have been
complied with by the members of the buy-bust team, asPO1 Manalo himself admitted
that the police did not make an inventory and photograph the seized items either at
the place of seizure or at the police station. In addition, the police did not offer any
acceptable reason why they failed to do a basic requirement like a physical inventory

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
of the seized drugs, considering that there were only three (3) sachets taken from the
appellant.
DECISION: After due consideration, we resolve to ACQUIT the appellant for the
prosecution’s failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
JAIME DELA CRUZ v PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 200748 | July 23, 2014
TICKLER: Gorordo Police Office. Submission of petitioner’s urine for drug testing.
DOCTRINE: The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or
arrested for any unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A.
9165.
FACTS: According to the prosecution, the NBI received a complaint from Corazon
and Charito that Ariel, who was the live-in partner of Corazon and the son of Charito
was picked up by unknown persons whom were believed to be police officers for
allegedly selling drugs. After that, an errand boy came and gave a phone number to
the complainants. During the call, complainants were instructed to go to Gorordo
Police Office wherein they met James who demanded them money worth P100,000
which was lowered to P40,000 in exchange of the release of Ariel. After the meeting,
they went to the NBI to file a complaint. Thus, the NBI conducted an entrapment
operation. During the course of entrapment, the officers were able to nab Dela Cruz
by using a pre-marked 500. After the incident, petitioner dela Cruz was required to
submit his urine for drug testing which produces a positive result for having presence
of dangerous drug. However, petitioner denied the charge against him.
CRIME CHARGED: Violation of Sec 15, Art 2 of RA 9165 – A person apprehended or

arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a
confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months
rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of
Article VIII of this Act…
RTC: CONVICTED petitioner, ruling that the following elements of Section 15 were
established: (1) the accused was arrested; (2) the accused was subjected to drug
test; and (3) the confirmatory test shows that he used a dangerous drug.
CA: AFFIRMED RTC
ISSUE: Is the drug test conducted upon the petitioner legal?
RULING: No. The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or
arrested for any unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A.
4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
9165. First, "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean any person
apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context and
understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons arrested
or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.
Hence, a drug test can be made upon persons who are apprehended or arrested for,
among others, the "importation," "sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation", "manufacture" and "possession" of dangerous drugs
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession thereof "during
parties, social gatherings or meetings"; being "employees and visitors of a den, dive
or resort"; "maintenance of a den, dive or resort"; "illegal chemical diversion of
controlled precursors and essential chemicals"; "manufacture or delivery" or
"possession" of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals; possession of
dangerous drugs "during parties, social gatherings or meetings"; "unnecessary" or
"unlawful" prescription thereof; "cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous
drugs or are sources thereof"; and "maintenance and keeping of original records of
transactions on dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals." To make the provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended
for any crime not listed under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its meaning.
Note that accused appellant here was arrested in the alleged act of extortion.
DECISION: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision and

Resolution issued by the former Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals are SET
ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v JAVIER MORILLA y AVELLANO

G.R. No. 189833 | February 5, 2014
TICKLER: Driver of ambulance; shabu; checkpoint; Mayor Mitra.
DOCTRINE: The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum

prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of
transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by
proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.
FACTS: Police officers have received information that several vehicles are being
used for transportation of dangerous drugs, hence, they organized a checkpoint in
Real, Quezon, to intercept the suspects. During the said check-point, two motor
vehicles, one Starex van with commemorative plate to read “Mayor”, driven by Ronnie
Mitra, then incumbent Mayor of Panukulan, Quezon, and a municipal ambulance,
driven by Javier Morilla, were searched. The Starex van which was ahead of the
ambulance was able to pass the checkpoint. However, the ambulance was stopped
by police officers. Through the untinted window, one of the police officers noticed

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
several sacks inside the van. Upon inquiry of the contents, Morilla replied that the
sacks contained narra wooden tiles. Unconvinced, the police officers requested
Morilla to open the rear door of the car for further inspection. When it was opened, the
operatives noticed that white crystalline granules were scattered on the floor,
prompting them to request Morilla to open the sacks. At this moment, Morilla told the
police officers that he was with Mayor Mitra in an attempt to persuade them to let him
pass. His request was rejected and the contents of the sacks turned out to be sacks
of methamphetamine hydrochloride. This discovery prompted the operatives to chase
the Starex van of Mayor Mitra. The police officers were able to overtake the van and
Mayor Mitra was asked to stop. They then inquired if the mayor knew Morilla. On plain
view, the operatives noticed that his van was also loaded with sacks like the ones
found in the ambulance. Thus, Mayor Mitra was also requested to open the door of
the vehicle for inspection. At this instance, Mayor Mitra offered to settle the matter but
the same was rejected. Upon examination, the contents of the sacks were likewise
found to contain sacks of methamphetamine hydrochloride. A certain Willie Yang and
Ruel Dequilla were found to be passengers of the ambulance.
CRIME CHARGED: Illegal transportation of illegal drugs (shabu), with approximate

weight of 503.68 kilos, against Morilla, Mayor Mitra, Yang and Dequilla (Conspiracy)
RTC: CONVICTED Morilla and Mayor Mitra of illegal transportation of shabu.

Absolved Yang and Dequilla for insufficiency of evidence.
The RTC rejected the defenses presented by Morilla and Mayor Mitra (that they have
no knowledge of the contents of the sacks as they were only requested to transport
the sacks allegedly containing wooden tiles to Manila) as they were caught in
flagrante delicto of transporting dangerous drugs in two vehicles driven by each of
them. Absent any convincing circumstance to corroborate their explanations, the
validity of their apprehension was sustained.
CA: AFFIRMED RTC. The claim that the sacks were loaded with wooden tiles was
implausible due to the obvious disparity of texture and volume.
ISSUE: Is Morilla guilty of illegal transportation of shabu?
RULING: YES.
Morilla argues that the mere act of driving the ambulance on the date he was
apprehended is not sufficient to prove that he was part of a syndicated group involved
in the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs. He insisted that he was without any
knowledge of the contents of the sacks and he just obeyed the instruction of his
immediate superior, Mayor Mitra, in driving the said vehicle.
In this case, the totality of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that Morilla
conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the dangerous drugs.
Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. “Transport” as used under the Dangerous
Drugs Act means “to carry or convey from one place to another.” It was well
established during trial that Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of
Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex van going to Manila. The very act of
transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum prohibitum since it is
punished as an offense under a special law. The fact of transportation of the sacks
containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent,
motive or knowledge.
DECISION: GUILTY of Illegal Transportation of Illegal Drugs, shabu.
NOTE: As to penalty imposed, originally, under Section 15 of RA No. 6425, the

penalty for illegal transportation of methamphetamine hydrochloride was
imprisonment ranging from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years and a fine ranging from
P6,000 to P12,000. Pursuant to PD No. 1683, the penalty was amended to life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P20,000-30,000. The penalty was
further amended in RA No. 7659, where the penalty was changed to reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000-P10M.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ROLANDO LAYLO

G.R. No. 192235 | July 6, 2011
DOCTRINE: The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are:
(1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
FACTS:
The prosecution summed up its version of the facts:
In the afternoon of 17 December 2005, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, both wearing
civilian clothes, were conducting anti-drug surveillance operations
at Lozana Street, Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal. While the police officers were in
front of a sari-sari store at around 5:40 p.m., appellant Laylo and his live-in
partner, Ritwal, approached them and asked, Gusto mong umiskor ng shabu? PO1
Reyes replied, Bakit mayroon ka ba? Laylo then brought out two plastic bags
containing shabu and told the police officers, Dos (P200.00) ang isa. Upon hearing
this, the police officers introduced themselves as cops. PO1 Reyes immediately
arrested Laylo. Ritwal, on the other, tried to get away but PO1 Pastor caught up with
her. PO1 Pastor then frisked Ritwal and found another sachet of shabu in a SIM card
case which Ritwal was carrying. The police officers charged Laylo for attempted sale
4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
of illegal drugs and used the two plastic sachets containing shabu as basis
while Ritwal was charged for possession of illegal drugs using as basis the third
sachet containing 0.02 grams of shabu.
The defense, on the other hand, presented different versions of the facts:
Laylo testified that while he and his common-law wife, Ritwal, were walking on the
street, two men grabbed them. The two men, who they later identified as PO1 Reyes
and PO1 Pastor, dragged them to their house. Once inside, the police officers placed
two plastic sachets in each of their pockets. Afterwards, they were brought to the
police station where, despite protests and claims that the drugs were planted on
them, they were arrested and charged.To corroborate Laylo’s testimony, the defense
presented Laylo’s three neighbors. Marlon de Leon (de Leon), also a close friend of
the couple, testified that he was taking care of the Laylo and Ritwal’s child when he
heard a commotion. He saw men, whom de Leon identified as assets, holding the
couple and claimed that he saw one of them put something, which he described as
plastic, in the left side of Laylo’s jacket. Rodrigo Panaon, Jr. (Panaon) narrated that
on 17 December 2005, at around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., he was on his way home when
he saw Laylo arguing with three men in an alley. He
overheard Laylo uttering, Bakit ba? Bakit ba? Later, Panaon saw a commotion taking
place at Laylo’s backyard. The three men arrested Laylo while the latter
shouted, Mga kapitbahay, tulungan ninyo kami, kami’y dinadampot.
Then Panaon saw someone place something inside the jacket of Laylo as he
heard Laylo say, Wala kayong makukuha dito. Teresita Marquez (Marquez) testified
that while she was fetching water from the well she heard Laylo’s son
shouting, Amang, Amang. Marquez then saw the child run to his father, who was with
several male companions. Then someone pulled Laylo’s collar and frisked him.
Marquez overheard someone uttering, Wala po, wala po. Marquez went home after
the incident. At around 9:00 in the evening, Ritwal’s daughter visited her and
borrowed money for Laylo and Ritwal’s release. Marquez then
accompanied Ritwal’s daughter to the municipal hall, where a man
demanded P40,000.00 for the couples release.
CRIME CHARGED: Violation of Section 26(b), Article II (Attempted Sale of

Dangerous Drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165)
RTC: Laylo and Ritwal GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violations of RA 9165.
CA: AFFIRMED the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE: Is appellant guilty of Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165?
RULING: YES. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs
are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
From the testimonies given, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor testified that they were the
poseur-buyers in the sale. Both positively identified appellant as the seller of the
substance contained in plastic sachets which were found to be positive for shabu. The
same plastic sachets were likewise identified by the prosecution witnesses when
presented in court. Even the consideration of P200.00 for each sachet had been
made known by appellant to the police officers. However, the sale was interrupted
when the police officers introduced themselves as cops and immediately arrested
appellant and his live-in partner Ritwal. Thus, the sale was not consummated but
merely attempted. Thus, appellant was charged with attempted sale of dangerous
drugs.
Here, appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission
of the intended crime by showing the substance to PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor. The
sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves and placed appellant
and Ritwalunder arrest. From the testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution was
able to establish that there was an attempt to sell shabu. In addition, the plastic
sachets were presented in court as evidence of corpus delicti. Thus, the elements of
the crime charged were sufficiently established by evidence.Appellant claims that he
was a victim of a frame up. However, he failed to substantiate his claim.
In sum, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC and CA. Appellant was
correctly found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 26(b), Article
II of RA 9165.
DECISION: WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal. We AFFIRM the Decision dated

28 January 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03631.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ROLANDO LAYLO

G.R. No. 192235 | July 6, 2011
DOCTRINE: The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are:
(1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
FACTS:
The prosecution summed up its version of the facts:
In the afternoon of 17 December 2005, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, both wearing
civilian clothes, were conducting anti-drug surveillance operations
at Lozana Street, Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal. While the police officers were in
front of a sari-sari store at around 5:40 p.m., appellant Laylo and his live-in
4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
partner, Ritwal, approached them and asked, Gusto mong umiskor ng shabu? PO1
Reyes replied, Bakit mayroon ka ba? Laylo then brought out two plastic bags
containing shabu and told the police officers, Dos (P200.00) ang isa. Upon hearing
this, the police officers introduced themselves as cops. PO1 Reyes immediately
arrested Laylo. Ritwal, on the other, tried to get away but PO1 Pastor caught up with
her. PO1 Pastor then frisked Ritwal and found another sachet of shabu in a SIM card
case which Ritwal was carrying. The police officers charged Laylo for attempted sale
of illegal drugs and used the two plastic sachets containing shabu as basis
while Ritwal was charged for possession of illegal drugs using as basis the third
sachet containing 0.02 grams of shabu.
The defense, on the other hand, presented different versions of the facts:
Laylo testified that while he and his common-law wife, Ritwal, were walking on the
street, two men grabbed them. The two men, who they later identified as PO1 Reyes
and PO1 Pastor, dragged them to their house. Once inside, the police officers placed
two plastic sachets in each of their pockets. Afterwards, they were brought to the
police station where, despite protests and claims that the drugs were planted on
them, they were arrested and charged.To corroborate Laylo’s testimony, the defense
presented Laylo’s three neighbors. Marlon de Leon (de Leon), also a close friend of
the couple, testified that he was taking care of the Laylo and Ritwal’s child when he
heard a commotion. He saw men, whom de Leon identified as assets, holding the
couple and claimed that he saw one of them put something, which he described as
plastic, in the left side of Laylo’s jacket. Rodrigo Panaon, Jr. (Panaon) narrated that
on 17 December 2005, at around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., he was on his way home when
he saw Laylo arguing with three men in an alley. He
overheard Laylo uttering, Bakit ba? Bakit ba? Later, Panaon saw a commotion taking
place at Laylo’s backyard. The three men arrested Laylo while the latter
shouted, Mga kapitbahay, tulungan ninyo kami, kami’y dinadampot.
Then Panaon saw someone place something inside the jacket of Laylo as he
heard Laylo say, Wala kayong makukuha dito. Teresita Marquez (Marquez) testified
that while she was fetching water from the well she heard Laylo’s son
shouting, Amang, Amang. Marquez then saw the child run to his father, who was with
several male companions. Then someone pulled Laylo’s collar and frisked him.
Marquez overheard someone uttering, Wala po, wala po. Marquez went home after
the incident. At around 9:00 in the evening, Ritwal’s daughter visited her and
borrowed money for Laylo and Ritwal’s release. Marquez then
accompanied Ritwal’s daughter to the municipal hall, where a man
demanded P40,000.00 for the couples release.
CRIME CHARGED: Violation of Section 26(b), Article II (Attempted Sale of

Dangerous Drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165)
RTC: Laylo and Ritwal GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violations of RA 9165.
CA: AFFIRMED the decision of the RTC.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda
ISSUE: Is appellant guilty of Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165?
RULING: YES. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs
are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
From the testimonies given, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor testified that they were the
poseur-buyers in the sale. Both positively identified appellant as the seller of the
substance contained in plastic sachets which were found to be positive for shabu. The
same plastic sachets were likewise identified by the prosecution witnesses when
presented in court. Even the consideration of P200.00 for each sachet had been
made known by appellant to the police officers. However, the sale was interrupted
when the police officers introduced themselves as cops and immediately arrested
appellant and his live-in partner Ritwal. Thus, the sale was not consummated but
merely attempted. Thus, appellant was charged with attempted sale of dangerous
drugs.
Here, appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission
of the intended crime by showing the substance to PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor. The
sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves and placed appellant
and Ritwalunder arrest. From the testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution was
able to establish that there was an attempt to sell shabu. In addition, the plastic
sachets were presented in court as evidence of corpus delicti. Thus, the elements of
the crime charged were sufficiently established by evidence.Appellant claims that he
was a victim of a frame up. However, he failed to substantiate his claim.
In sum, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC and CA. Appellant was
correctly found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 26(b), Article
II of RA 9165.
DECISION: WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal. We AFFIRM the Decision dated

28 January 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03631.

4F (A.Y. 2017-2018) San Beda

Ombudsman Case Alias Name

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ombudsman Case Alias Name

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Case Digests

Outline by Fiscal Victoria C. Garcia

REVISED PENAL CODE: BOOK TWO

TITLE FOUR (ARTICLES 161-187): Crimes Against Public Interest

CESARIO URSUA v COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TICKLER: Ombudsman Case, messenger of lawyer

DOCTRINE: Hence, the use of a fictitious name or a different name belonging to

FACTS: Petitioner Cesario Ursua was a Community Environment and Natural

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

petitioner be accordingly charged.

ISSUE: Is accused guilty of violating Sec. 1 of C.A. 142 as amended by R. A. No.

Oscar Perez is not an alias name of petitioner.There is no evidence showing that he

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v JOSEPH EJERCITO-ESTRADA

TICKLER: Jose Velarde, Alias.

DOCTRINE: An alias is a name used by a person or intended to be used by him

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Evidences presented by the people consisted of:

1. Testimonies of Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB) officers Clarissa

2. Testimony of PCIB-Greenhills Branch Manager Teresa Barcelan, who declared that

CRIME CHARGED: Illegal use of alias under Commonwealth Act 142

SANDIGANBAYAN: DISMISSED the case.

Three salient points:

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

Estrada did not publicly use the alias Jose Velarde:

ISSUE: Is Estrada liable for illegal use alias?

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

DECISION: Petition DENIED for lack of merit.

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

TITLE FIVE: Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v PABLITO ANDAYA

TICKLER: Confidential informant was not presented as witness.

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

CRIME CHARGED: Violation of Section 5 (Sale, Trading, Administration,

RTC: CONVICTED Andaya as charged, penalty of life imprisonment

CA: AFFIRMED in toto the conviction.

ISSUE: Did the CA err in affirming the conviction of Andaya?

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

2. The reliance on the supposed signal to establish the consummation of the

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v GERARDO ENUMERABLE

TICKLER: 3 sachets; Petron; No chain of custody.

CRIME CHARGED: Violation of Sec 5 of RA 9165

RTC: Found accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of as principal by direct

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

DECISION: WHEREFORE, we GRANT the appeal and ACQUIT appellant Gerardo

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v FERNANDO RANCHE HAVANA

TICKLER: Chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs.

DOCTRINE: Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

ISSUE: Was adherence to the chain of custody rule established?

RULING: NO. As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

The prosecution’s cause is also marred by confusion and uncertainty regarding

DECISION: CA is reversed and decision is set aside. Fernando Ranche Havana

CAVEAT: NOT FOR REPRODUCTION. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

having been established beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v SONIA BERNEL NUARIN

TICKLER: Violation of Sections 53 and 11, RA 9165.

Prosecution’s version is that testified that on February 2, 2003, members of the

CRIME CHARGED: Violation of Sections 53 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165

RTC: GUILTY as charged.