Dangerous Drugs Issue :
Held
People v Cabugatan (2007)
Petitioner: People
Respondent : Boisan Cabugatan
2 informations were filed against Boisan Cabugatan for
violations of RA 9165 / Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
in the City of Baguio.
Sec 5 Art II
o He was caught selling, distributing and delivering a
small transparent plastic heat sealed sachet
containing crystalling substance Shabu weighing
0.1 g for 150.00, Philippine Currency to PO3 a
member of PNP during a buy-bust operation.
Sec 11, Art II
o Possession and control one transparent plastic
containing 4 small transparent plastic sachet
containing Shabu 0.2 g
He pleaded not guilty to both charges
Pre-trial of cases was held at which time he admitted to the ff
documents existence
o Certification of preliminary test on the 5 sachets
marked as to the findings of positive result
o Chemistry report
o Request for drug test
o Booking sheet and arrest report of the accused
A reliable civilian informant, accompanied by the barangay
kagawad went to the Baguio City Police and advised the
inspector that Boisan was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu
at Villacor Billiard Hall in Baguio.
A buy-bust operation team was formed, a poseur-buyer
designated (PO2 Del-ong_ and marked bills of 100 and 50
pesos. The team went to the said place and met a man
(wearing black bull cap, gray sweatshirt with collar). Civilian
informant introduced Boisan to P02 Del-Ong, 150 pesos only,
then teh latter drew a small sachet which eh gave to P02 Del-
Ong. He scratched head using left hand to alert fellow team
members of the sale of shabu. Buy-bust team arrested Boisan
and informed him of his constitutional rights
He was frisked and thereafter 4 small transparent sachets with
crystalline substance were found
He was taken to police station where buy-bust team prepared
arrest report, booking sheet, joint-affidavit. They made a
request for intial testing of evidence (preliminary test)
Boisan subjected to a drug test which was postive
Defense
As to the buy bust
o He claimed that the buy-bust never took place. He
is a maranaw who earns a living by peddling
sunglasses ni Baguio. When the buy-bust took
place he was playing billiard with 2 others at villacor
Billiard Hall when 3 men in civilian clothes arrived
o He was frisked along with fellow players and was
able to recover a single plastic sachet. PO2 Del-ong
pointed a gun at his head and warned him he would
be shot should he do anything. He was brough tot
o the police station and the officers asked he pay a
sum of money to police in order to settle the case.
As a result of the drug test, Boisan stated that he was a drug
user while he was still in Mindanao but he evaded the habit
when he moved to Baguio.
Rebuttal by P02 Del-ong:
After arrest of Boisan, a minor and a companion approached
him and asked if he still ahd drugs to sell. The buy-bust team
decided to arrest the 2 would-be buyers.
RTC
Found him guilty in the 2 criminal case
CA
Affirmed RTC decision in toto(TOTALLY)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated 28 October
2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00174, affirming,
in toto, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch
61 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the fine imposed
on appellant in Criminal Case No. 20441-R is reduced to 500,000.00.
No costs.
We thoroughly examined the entire records of this case. we
failed to identify any error committed by the trial court both in
its appreciation of the evidence presented before it and in the
conclusion it reached.
In the prosecution of offenses involving this provision of
the statute, it is necessary that the following elements be
established:
(1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and
consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefore.
What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of evidence of corpus delicti. (evidence of a crime)
In this case, all the elements of the crime have been
sufficiently established.
o The witnesses for the prosecution were able to
prove that the buy-bust operation indeed took place
and the shabu subject of the sale was brought and
duly identified in court.
o The poseur-buyer (PO2 Del-ong) positively
identified appellant as the one who sold to him a
packet of white crystalline substancewhich was
later confirmed by two chemical examinations to be
shabu
NO FRAMEUP
For his part, appellant could not offer any viable defense
except to claim that he was a victim of frame-up and
extortion by the police officers. For the claim of frame-up to
prosper, the defense must present clear and convincing
evidence to overcome the presumption that the arresting
policemen performed their duties in a regular and proper
manner.
There was, therefore, no motive for them to frame him up
because he did not know the civilians were arresting officers.
Absent any proof of motive to falsely accuse him of such a
grave offense, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty and the findings of the trial court
with respect to the credibility of witnesses shall prevail over
appellants bare allegation that he was framed-up.
Arrest without warrant is valid in the jurisdiction when in the
conduct of buy-bust operation. The rule is settled that an arrest
made after an entrapment does nto require a warrant in as much as
it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Sec 5(a) Rule
113 of teh Rules of Court.
o When in his presence, the person arrested has committed, is
actually commiting, or is attempting to commit an offense
DETERMINATION OF PENALTIES
Section 98, Article XIII of Republic Act No. 9165 expressly provides
for the limited application of the provisions of the RPC on said law.
SEC. 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code.
Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815), as amended, shall
not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor
offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable
by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua
to death.
1
 Under the section, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code
shall no longer apply to the provisions of Republic Act
No. 9165 except when the offender is a minor.
Thus, Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code shall not be
used in the determination of the penalty to be imposed on
the accused. Since Section 98 of the said law contains the
word "shall," the non-applicability of the Revised Penal
Code provisions is mandatory, subject only to the exception
in case the offender is a minor.
With the advent of Republic Act No. 9165, the Courts, in
determining the appropriate minimum and maximum of
the penalty to be meted out to offenders, shall be guided
solely by the pertinent part of the Indeterminate Sentence
Law, to wit:
o SECTION 1. xxx; and if the offense is punished by
any other law, the court shall sentence the accused
to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
law and the minimum shall not be less than the
minimum term prescribed by the same.
In the imposition of the proper penalty, the courts, taking into
account the circumstances attendant in the commission of the
offense, are given discretion to impose either life imprisonment or
death, and the fine as provided for by law.
In light, however, of the effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, "An
Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines," the
imposition of the supreme penalty of death shall only be life
imprisonment and fine. Hence, the penalty of life imprisonment
imposed on appellant in Criminal Case No. 20441-R is proper. We,
however, find the fine of 1,000,000.00 to be excessive and reduce
the same to 500,000.00 considering that the records do not reveal
any prior arrest or conviction of appellant for a drug-related
offense.
affirm the conviction and penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years
and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and the fine of 300,000.00
Social Justice Society (SJS) v Dangerous Drugs
Board and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA)
Sec 36 of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
is involved in this case insofar as it requires mandatory
drug testing of
o candidates for public office,
o students of secondary and tertiary schools,
o officers and employees of public and private offices,
and
o persons charged before the prosecutors office with
certain offenses
penalty of imprisonment of 6 yrs and 1
day above
Sec 36. Authorized drug testing , RA 9165
o done by any government forensic laboratories / any
drug testing labs accredited and monitored by the
DOH
o to safeguard the quality of the tests results
o employed using 2 testing methods
screening test determine the positive
result as well as the type of drug used
confirmatory test confirm a positive
screening test
o the ff people as stated above shall be subjected to
undergo random drug testing
this case is a consolidated petition of 3 cases
o Pimentel v COMELEC
Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing
the rules and regulations on the
mandatory drug testing of candidates for
public office in connection with the May
10, 2004 synchronized national and local
elections
seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165
and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486
dated December 23, 2003 for being
unconstitutional in that they impose a
qualification for candidates for senators
in addition to those already provided for
in the 1987 Constitution.
o Laserna v Dangeroud Drugs Board and Phil Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
Petitioner Atty. Manuel J. Laserna, Jr., as
citizen and taxpayer, also seeks in his
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition
under Rule 65 that Sec. 36(c), (d), (f), and
(g) of RA 9165 be struck down as
unconstitutional for infringing on the
constitutional right to privacy, the right
against unreasonable search and
seizure, and the right against self-
incrimination, and for being contrary to
the due process and equal protection
guarantees.
Social Justice Society v Dangerous Drugs Board and
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
o seeks to prohibit the Dangerous Drugs Board
(DDB) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) from enforcing paragraphs (c), (d),
(f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the ground that
they are constitutionally infirm.
o the provisions constitute undue delegation of
legislative power when they give unbridled
discretion to schools and employers to determine
the manner of drug testing. For another, the
provisions trench in the equal protection clause
inasmuch as they can be used to harass a student
or an employee deemed undesirable. And for a
third, a persons constitutional right against
unreasonable searches is also breached by said
provisions.
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary
schools.Students of secondary and tertiary schools
shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations
as contained in the schools student handbook and
with notice to the parents, undergo a random drug
testing x x x;
(d) Officers and employees of public and private
offices.Officers and employees of public and private
offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be
subjected to undergo a random drug test as
contained in the companys work rules and
regulations, x x x for purposes of reducing the risk
in the workplace. Any officer or employee found
positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt
with administratively which shall be a ground for
suspension or termination, subject to the provisions
of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent
provisions of the Civil Service Law;
(f) All persons charged before the prosecutors
office with a criminal offense having an imposable
penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6)
years and one (1) day shall undergo a mandatory
drug test;
(g) All candidates for public office whether
appointed or elected both in the national or local
government shall undergo a mandatory drug test.
In addition to the above stated penalties in this
Section, those found to be positive for dangerous
drugs use shall be subject to the provisions of
Section 15 of this Act.
Issue:
2
(1) Do Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486
impose an additional qualification for candidates for senator? Corollarily,
can Congress enact a law prescribing qualifications for candidates for
senator in addition to those laid down by the Constitution? and
(2) Are paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA 9165
unconstitutional?
Held
1. Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165, as sought to be implemented by the assailed
COMELEC resolution, effectively enlarges the qualification
requirements enumerated in the Sec. 3, Art. VI of the Constitution.
As couched, said Sec. 36(g) unmistakably requires a
candidate for senator to be certified illegal-drug clean,
obviously as a pre-condition to the validity of a certificate of
candidacy for senator or, with like effect, a condition sine qua
non to be voted upon and, if proper, be proclaimed as senator-
elect. The COMELEC resolution completes the chain with the
proviso that [n]o person elected to any public office shall enter
upon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory
drug test.
Viewed, therefore, in its proper context, Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165
and the implementing COMELEC Resolution add another
qualification layer to what the 1987 Constitution, at the
minimum, requires for membership in the Senate.
Whether or not the drug-free bar set up under the challenged
provision is to be hurdled before or after election is really of
no moment, as getting elected would be of little value if one
cannot assume office for non-compliance with the drug-testing
requirement.
2. SJS petition :Par. c,d, f, g of Sec 36 of RA 9165 is constitutional.
The drug test prescribed under Sec. 36(c), (d), and (f) of RA
9165 for secondary and tertiary level students and public and
private employees, while mandatory, is a random and
suspicionless arrangement.
Re school children
School children, the US Supreme Court noted, are most
vulnerable to the physical, psychological, and addictive effects
of drugs.
Vernonia, school administrators in Vernonia, Oregon wanted to address
the drug menace in their respective institutions following the discovery
of frequent drug use by school athletes. After consultation with the
parents, they required random urinalysis drug testing for the schools
athletes.James Acton, a high school student, was denied participation in
the football program after he refused to undertake the urinalysis drug
testing.
(1) schools stand in loco parentis over their students;
(2) school children, while not shedding their constitutional
rights at the school gate, have less privacy rights;
(3) athletes have less privacy rights than non-athletes since
the former observe communal undress before and after sports
events;
(4) by joining the sports activity, the athletes voluntarily
subjected themselves to a higher degree of school
supervision and regulation;
(5) requiring urine samples does not invade a students privacy
since a student need not undress for this kind of drug testing;
and
(6) there is need for the drug testing because of the dangerous
effects of illegal drugs on the young
In Board of Education, the Board of Education of a school
in Tecumseh, Oklahoma required a drug test for high school students
desiring to join extra-curricular activities. Requiring non-athletes to
undergo drug testing
What can be held in the 2 cases: Applying in our jurisdiction
(1) schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respect
to their students;
(2) minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are
subject to the custody and supervision of their parents, guardians, and
schools;
(3) schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health
and well-being of their students and may adopt such measures as may
reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty; and
(4) schools have the right to impose conditions on applicants for
admission that are fair, just, and non-discriminatory.
the Court is of the view and so holds that the provisions of RA
9165 requiring mandatory, random, and suspicionless drug
testing of students are constitutional. Indeed, it is within the
prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a
condition for admission, compliance with reasonable school
rules and regulations and policies. To be sure, the right to
enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable, and
equitable requirements.
On the employees
Like their counterparts in the private sector, government
officials and employees also labor under reasonable
supervision and restrictions imposed by the Civil Service law
and other laws on public officers, all enacted to promote a
high standard of ethics in the public service.
For another, the random drug testing shall be undertaken
under conditions calculated to protect as much as possible
the employees privacy and dignity. As to the mechanics of
the test, the law specifies that the procedure shall employ two
testing methods, i.e., the screening test and the confirmatory
test, doubtless to ensure as much as possible the
trustworthiness of the results. But the more important
consideration lies in the fact that the test shall be conducted
by trained professionals in access-controlled laboratories
monitored by the Department of Health (DOH) to safeguard
against results tampering and to ensure an accurate chain of
custody In addition, the IRR issued by the DOH provides that
access to the drug results shall be on the need to know basis.
the drug test result and the records shall be [kept] confidential
subject to the usual accepted practices to protect the
confidentiality of the test results.
The employees privacy interest in an office is to a large extent
circumscribed by the companys work policies, the collective
bargaining agreement, if any, entered into by management
and the bargaining unit, and the inherent right of the employer
to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace. Their
privacy expectation in a regulated office environment is, in
fine, reduced; and a degree of impingement upon such
privacy has been upheld.
Contrary to its position, the provision in question is not
so extensively drawn as to give unbridled options to
schools and employers to determine the manner of drug
testing.
Sec. 36 expressly provides how drug testing for students of
secondary and tertiary schools and officers/employees of
public/private offices should be conducted. It enumerates the
persons who shall undergo drug testing. In the case of
students, the testing shall be in accordance with the school
rules as contained in the student handbook and with notice to
parents. On the part of officers/employees, the testing shall
take into account the companys work rules. In either case, the
random procedure shall be observed, meaning that the
persons to be subjected to drug test shall be picked by chance
or in an unplanned way. And in all cases, safeguards against
misusing and compromising the confidentiality of the test
results are established.
On persons charged with criminal offenses punishable with 6 y, 1
d imprisonment - Unconstitutional
The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are
randomness and suspicionless. In the case of persons
charged with a crime before the prosecutors office, a
3
 mandatory drug testing can never be random or
suspicionless.
The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are
antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal
complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they
beyond suspicion.
When persons suspected of committing a crime are charged,
they are singled out and are impleaded against their will. The
persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before
the prosecutors office and peaceably submitting themselves
to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily consent
to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy.
To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant
attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal
prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA
9165. Drug testing in this case would violate a persons right
to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution.
Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to
incriminate themselves.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to GRANT the petition in G.R. No.
161658 and declares Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 6486 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL; and to PARTIALLY
GRANT the petition in G.R. Nos. 157870 and 158633 by declaring Sec.
36(c) and (d) of RA 9165 CONSTITUTIONAL, but declaring its Sec.
36(f) UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All concerned agencies are, accordingly,
permanently enjoined from implementing Sec. 36(f) and (g) of RA 9165.
People v Partoza
Appeal of the decision of CA affirming conviction by RTC of Edwin
Partoza for teh crime of possession and sale of dangerous drugs
Partoza was charged in 2 separate informations before RTC
with possession and sale of shabu
o Crim Case 6524 :
Violation of Sec 11, par 2 No 3 Art II,
RA 9165. possession, direct custody,
control of 1 sealed transparent plastic
sachet of white crystalline substance,
0.04 g Shabu
o Crim case 6526 :
Violation of Sec 5, par 1, Art II RA 9165.
Knowlingly sell, deliver and give away to
another person 1 heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet 0.04 g
Shabu
o Pleaded not guilty to both informations
PO3 Tougan testified that the police of San Mateo Rizal
received an information from an informat that a certain Parto
was selling Shabu at Sta. Barbara Subdivision. Parto had
been under surveillance by the police for selling prohibited
drugs.
Planned Buy-bust operation with Tougan acting as poseur
buyer. He received 100 bill from police chief and placed the
serial numbers of the bill on the police blotter
Tougan et al with civilian informant proceeded to Sta. Maria
subdivision and before the actual buy-bust operation, group
responded to a commotion where they arrested Samaniego.
They then went to Jupiter St where they spotted Parto in trike
terminal. Informed appellant then asked how much Piso land
= 100 pesos (WHUTS)
Grabbed partos hand, introduce himself as police man.
Discovered another plastic sachet
In police station
2 plastic sachets were marked
police prepared request for lab exam it was confimed to be
shabu
Defense
Boisan denied charges aganst him claiming that he was
driving a female passenger in his trike when he noticed that
police officers were trying to arrest a person who was causing
trouble.
One of them approached him and asked why he was driving
drunk. He said that he offered a drink by his friends, they took
his drivers license and invited him to police station
RTC
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution was able to
prove that he had taken money in exchange for shabu. Full
fiath and credence to testimony of PO3 Tougan.
CA
The appellate court held that the prosecution had successfully
adduced evidence which proved beyond reasonable doubt
that appellant had sold one (1) sachet of shabu to PO3
Tougan, who had acted as the poseur buyer during a
legitimate buy-bust operation.
Boisan maintains
Presumption of regularity, upon which conviction rests,
must not take precedence over presumption of innocence.
Challenges Tougans account of events considering that
police were present in vicitnity to report Samaniego and not to
conduct buy-bust
Integrity of evidence for failure to mark seized items and to
observe chain of custody required under Sec. 21 of 9165.
OSG
Direct testimony of Tougan sufficiently established elements
of illegal sale and possession of shabu
Marking: Tougan held on to sachets from time he
confiscated them until time that he was able to place his
initials on them and submitted the request for examination
to crim lab
Avers that Sec 21 of 9165 (chain of custody and disposition of
confiscated or seized drugs) was not yet applicable at the time
he committed the crime
Issue: whether the evidence used against Boisen lacks integrity for
failure to adhere to Sec 21 of RA 9165? - YES
Held:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated 5 October
2007 of the Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 76, San Mateo, Rizal is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Edwin Partoza y Evora
is ACQUITTED based reasonable doubt and is ordered
immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any
other lawful cause.
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;
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor
(3) What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or
sale or had actually taken place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti]
ELEMENTS OF illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object
which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
said drug
(4) ]Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus
delicti must be established beyond doubt.
Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165
mandates that the apprehending team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
o seizure and confiscation,
o physically inventory and
o photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the
4
 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.
In the instant case, it is indisputable that the procedures
for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous
drugs in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not complied
with.
Sec 21 : Statutory safeguards were not followed
PO3 Tougan did not mark the seized drugs immediately
after he arrested appellant in the latter's presence.
Neither did he make an inventory and take a photograph
of the confiscated items in the presence of appellant.
There was no representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, or any elected public official who
participated in the operation and who were supposed to sign
an inventory of seized items and be given copies thereof.
None of these statutory safeguards were observed.
GR: The failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of
custody is fatal to its cause.
PO3 Tougan mentioned a certain Inspector Manahan as the
one who signed the request for laboratory examination. He
did not however relate to whom the custody of the drugs
was turned over.
the evidence of the prosecution did not reveal the identity
of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the
drugs after its examination and pending presentation in
court.
Furthermore, while PO3 Tougan admitted to have in his
possession the shabu from the time appellant was
apprehended at the crime scene to the police station, records
are bereft of proof on how the seized items were handled
from the time they left the hands of PO3 Tougan.
EXCEPTION: While this Court recognizes that non-
compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal
as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as long
as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team, yet these conditions were not met in the
case at bar. No explanation was offered by PO3 Tougan
for his failure to observe the rule.
All told, the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
No presumption of regularity
The courts below heavily relied on the testimony of PO3
Tougan.
In People v. Garcia, we said that the presumption only
arises in the absence of contrary details in the case that raise
doubt on the regularity in the performance of official duties.
Where, as in the present case, the police officers failed to
comply with the standard procedures prescribed by law,
there is no occasion to apply the presumption
People v Padua (2008)
Petitioner: Michael Padua
Respondent: People
On June 16, 2003, petitioner Michael Padua and Edgar
Allan Ubalde were charged before the RTC, Pasig City of
violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, for selling dangerous drugs
o violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, Republic Act No. 9165 in
relation to R.A. [No.] 8369, Sec. 5 par. (a) and (i),
Edgar Allan Ubalde and Michael Padua y Tordel, a minor,
seventeen (17) years old, conspiring and confederating
together.. not being lawfully authorized to sell any dangerous
drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, deliver and give away
to PO1 Roland A. Panis, a police poseur-buyer, one (1)
folded newsprint containing 4.86 grams of dried marijuana
fruiting tops, which was found positive to the tests for
marijuana, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.
Padua INITIALLY entered plea of not guilty
o Counsel however manifested after a year that
Padua was willing to withdraw his plea of not guilty
and enter a plea of guilty to avail of the benefits
granted to first-time offenders under Sec 70 of RA
9165.
o Prosecutor did not object, Padua was re-arraigned.
RTC found Padua guilty of crime charged.
Padua filed a Petition for Probation (based on the Child
and Welfare Code) alleging he is a minor and a first time
offender who desires to avail of benefits of probation.
Was denied because those convicted of drug trafficking
cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law.
Padua filed MR still denied
Rule 65 with CA
CA
Denied
MR denied also
Issue
1. Did the Court of Appeals err in dismissing Paduas petition for
certiorari assailing the trial courts order denying his petition for
probation? NO (intent of RA 9165)
2. Was Paduas right under Rep. Act No. 9344, the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, violated?
3. Does Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC otherwise known as
the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law have application
in this case?
Held
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision
dated April 19, 2005 and the Resolution dated June 14, 2005 of the
Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED
1. Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing Paduas petition for
certiorari.
A review of the orders of the RTC denying Paduas petition for
probation shows that the RTC neither acted without jurisdiction
nor with grave abuse of discretion because it merely applied
the law and adhered to principles of statutory construction in
denying Paduas petition for probation.
Padua was charged and convicted for violation of Section 5,
Article II of Rep. Act No. 9165 for selling dangerous drugs. It
is clear under Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165 that any person
convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege of
probation
if a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be
given its literal meaning and applied without attempted
interpretation. This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule
or verba legis.
Intention of RA 9165 to provide stiffer and harsher punishment for
those convicted of drug trafficking/pushing
Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that the intention of the
legislators in Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165 is to provide
stiffer and harsher punishment for those persons convicted of
drug trafficking or pushing while extending a sympathetic
and magnanimous hand in Section 70 to drug dependents
who are found guilty of violation of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Act.
The law considers the users and possessors of illegal drugs as
victims while the drug traffickers and pushers as
predators. Hence, while drug traffickers and pushers, like
Padua, are categorically disqualified from availing the law
5
 on probation, youthful drug dependents, users and
possessors alike, are given the chance to mend their
ways.
The Court of Appeals also correctly stated that had it been the
intention of the legislators to exempt from the application
of Section 24 the drug traffickers and pushers who are
minors and first time offenders, the law could have easily
declared so.
As clearly shown in the penalties
The law indeed appears strict and harsh against drug
traffickers and drug pushers while protective of drug users
a person arrested for using illegal or dangerous drugs is
meted only
o a penalty of 6 months rehabilitation in a
government center, as minimum, for the first
offense under Section 15 of Rep. Act No. 9165,
while a person charged and convicted of selling dangerous
drugs shall suffer
o life imprisonment to death
o fine ranging from 500k-10m under Section 5, Rep.
Act No. 9165.
2&3
Padua cannot argue right under Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
since suspension of sentence could no longer be applied when the
child reaches the maximum age of 21 years.
Suspension of sentence under Section 38 Rep. Act No. 9344
could no longer be retroactively applied for petitioners benefit.
o Section 38 of Rep. Act No. 9344 provides that once
a child under 18 years of age is found guilty of the
offense charged, instead of pronouncing the
judgment of conviction, the court shall place the
child in conflict with the law under suspended
sentence.
o Section 40 Rep. Act No. 9344, however, provides
that once the child reaches 18 years of age, the
court shall determine whether to discharge the
child, order execution of sentence, or extend the
suspended sentence for a certain specified
period or until the child reaches the maximum
age of 21 years.
People v Habana (2010)
Petitioner : People
Respondent : Fernando Habana
2 separate informations against accused Habana before RTC
of Caloocan were filed for violations of Sec 5, 11, Art II of RA
9165 aka Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In the morning of July 17, 2003 members of the Anti-Illegal
Drug Task Force Unit of Caloocan City Police Station met
with an informant at Chowking where the latter told them
that a certain LOLOY, identified as the accused Habana, was
selling shabu. The group proceeded to the place and staked
it out.
After locating Habana, a short briefing was held, and the
members decided to conduct a buy-bust operation as P01
Paras as the poseur-buyer (scratch his head by way of signal
after purchase and handed over 2 pcs of 50 pesos bills) for
buy-bust money. Paras placed his initials FP on the money.
Paras approached the accused Habana who asked them how
much they wanted to buy. Paras handed over money to
Habana to pocket it
In turn, the latter handed over to Paras a plastic sachet that
contained shabu.
Executed pre-arranged signal ;
Introduced himself as policeman and arrested Habana
Tayag rushed to scene and helped Paras. Tayag searched
Habanas body and this yielded 2 more plastic sachets
containing shabu and marked bills
The arresting officers handed custody of his persons and
items seized from him to Moran, the investigator on duty who
placed his marking on them and submitted the same to PNP
Crime Lab
Forensic Chemist found substance as shabu
Defense
Habana was on his way home when 5-7 men in civilian clothes
blocked his way. He was searched but he resisted because
he was not doing anything illegal. Still, the men frisked him
and took 500 pesos from his pocket.
He was brought to police station and detained. Police told him
to produce 20k for his freedom.
For failing to give amount, they charged him with illegal
possession and sale of shabu
Amelia Sevilla
She was about to close her store when she saw 2 men
suddenly approach and frisk accused Habana who was just
standing near her store.
Habana raised his hands and said, Bakit ano po kasalanan ko
bat nyo ko kinakapkapan?
They got coins in his shorts pants pocket and then left with
him. On the ff day, Sevilla heard from her neighbors that the
police had arrested Habana
RTC : guilty of both charges. Since on of the penalties imposed was life
imprisonment, the case was elevated to the CA for review and
disposition
CA : affirmed RTC decision
Issue:
1. Whether the prosecutions failure to present the forensic chemist and
the police investigator assigned to the case is fatal to its case against
accused Habana? NO
2. Whether or not the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the
seized substance taken from Habana along the chain of custody.
Held
1. Habana points out that the prosecutions failure to present at the
trial the informant, the investigating officer, and the forensic
chemist militates against the trustworthiness of the prosecutions
evidence.
There is no rule requiring the prosecution to present as
witness in a drugs case every person who had something to
do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of prohibited
drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to present in
every case belongs to the prosecutor
The non-presentation of the informant cannot prejudice the
prosecutions theory of the case. His testimony would merely
be corroborative since police officers Paras and Tayag who
witnessed everything already testified. Besides, as a rule, it is
rarely that the prosecutor would present the informant
because of the need to hide his identity and preserve his
invaluable service to the police.
2. Habana claims since the police officers involved failed to adhere
strictly to the requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, the
evidence of the seized shabu cannot be admitted against him.
In all prosecutions for the violation of The Dangerous Drugs
Act, the existence of the prohibited drug has to be proved.
The chain of custody rule
o requires that testimony be presented about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was
seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. To
this end, the prosecution must ensure that the
substance presented in court is the same
substance seized from the accused.
o EXCEPTION : While this Court recognizes
substantial adherence to the requirements of R.A.
9165 and its implementing rules and regulations,
6
 not perfect adherence, is what is demanded of
police officers attending to drugs cases, still,
such officers must present justifiable reason for
their imperfect conduct and show that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items had been preserved.
Here, however, they failed to meet these conditions.The police
officers offered no explanation for their failure to observe the chain
of custody rule.
The prosecution failed to show how the seized items changed
hands, from when the police officers seized them from
Habana to the time they were presented in court as
evidence. PO1 Paras said that he turned over the sachets
of shabu to the investigator on duty.
But the prosecution did not adduce evidence on what the
investigator on duty did with the seized articles, how these got
to the laboratory technician, and how they were kept before
being adduced in evidence at the trial.
Usually,
1. police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns
it over to a supervising officer who would then
2. send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing.
3. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance
changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the
officer who seized the substance from the suspect to
place his marking on its plastic container and seal the
same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be
removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container.
4. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized
substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its
integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory.
If the substance is not in a plastic container,
1. the officer should put it in one and seal the same. In
this way the substance would assuredly reach
the laboratory in the same condition it was
seized from the accused.
2. After the laboratory technician tests and verifies
the nature of the substance in the container,
3. he should put his own mark on the plastic
container and seal it again with a new seal
since the police officers seal has been broken.
4. At the trial, the technician can then describe the
sealed condition of the plastic container when it
was handed to him and testify on the procedure he
took afterwards to preserve its integrity.
If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made,
the prosecution would have to present every
o police officer,
o messenger,
o laboratory technician, and
o storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no
matter how briefly ones possession has been.
o Each of them has to testify that the substance,
although unsealed, has not been tampered with
or substituted while in his care.
Since the failure in this case to comply with the procedure in the custody
of seized drugs compromised the identity and integrity of the items
seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against
Habana, his acquittal is in order.
People v Santiago (2011)
Roselle Pabalinas Tisay was charged with violation of
Sec 5 and 15 of RA 9165 before RTC of Makati.
Initially, Roselle pleaded not guilty in the criminal case for
violation of Sec 15 but changed her plea to guilty. The court
however deffered her sentencing until the termination of the
case for violation of Sec 5.
PO1 Esguerra testified that
o they received information that Roselle was
selling illegal drugs at her house at Pipit Extension,
Barangay Rizal, Makati.
o Esguerra conducted a test buy and received from
her 1 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet that
contained shabu.
o When he returned to office, Esguerra marked
sachet with @ Tisay then sent it to laboratory for
testing.
Before receiving results of the test buy, an asset told police
Roselle was going to leave her house so Esguerras team to
conduct a buy-bust operation.
So, Esguerra met Roselle and told her that it was she who
bought shabu from her earlier that day, so Roselle let him
enter the front yard of her house where he told that he wanted
another pack for 300 pesos. Roselle took the marked money
and entered the house.
Esguerra spotted 2 women inside using shabu with the
asset by their side, apparently waiting for his turn.
Subsequently, Roselle returned with one heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing shabu. After Esguerra
signaled his team, the arrested Roselle and appraised her of
her rights. Esguerra immediately marked the sachet with RPS.
After returning to the station, he turned over Roselle and the
seized sachet to the investigator. When the contents of the
first and second sachets (with @ Tisay and RPS markings)
were examined, these were confirmed to
be Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride(shabu).
o A confirmatory test also found Roselle positive
for the use of shabu.
Roselles defense
o she denies selling shabu to Esguerra
o she was a victim of mistaken identity. She was not
know as tisay in the area but Roselle.
o She was forcibly taken from house and custody
RTC : guilty of violation of Sec 5, Art II RA 9165.
Sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of 500k
Sentenced also to undergo rehab for not less than 6 months at a govt
drug rehab center
CA : Roselle appealed from both judgments. CA affirmed the two
convictions.
Roselle now asks for acquittal from SC.
Issues
(1) whether or not the police conducted a valid arrest in Roselles case
(2) whether or not the CA erred in affirming the RTCs finding that the
prosecution evidence established her guilt of the offense charged
beyond reasonable doubt.
Held
WHEREFORE, for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt of the alleged violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the
Court REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
HC 03451 dated October 30, 2009 and ACQUITS the accused Roselle
Santiago y Pabalinas of the charge against her for that crime.
The Court DIRECTS the warden of the Correctional Institute for Women
to release the accused from custody immediately upon receipt of this
decision unless she is validly detained for some other reason.
1. Roselle claims that the police did not make a valid arrest in her case
since they arrested her without proper warrant and did not apprise her
of the rights of a person taken into custody as the Constitution and R.A.
7438 provide.
But Roselle raised this issue only during appeal, not
before she was arraigned. For this reason, she should be
deemed to have waived any question as to the legality of
her arrest
2. It failed to provide proper identity of the allegedly prohibited
substance that the police seized from Roselle.
Since the seized SUBSTANCE WAS HEAT-SEALED IN PLASTIC
7
SACHET and properly marked by the officer who seized the same,
it would have also been sufficient, despite intervening changes in its
custody and possession, if the prosecution had presented the
forensic chemist to attest to the fact
a) that the sachet of substance was handed to him for
examination in the same condition that Esguerra last held
it: still heat-sealed, marked, and not tampered with;
b) that he (the chemist) opened the sachet and examined its
content;
c) that he afterwards resealed the sachet and what is left of
its content and placed his own marking on the cover; and
d) that the specimen remained in the same condition when
it is being presented in court.
In this way, the court would have been assured of the integrity
of the specimen as presented before it. If the finding of the
chemist is challenged, there may be opportunity for the
court to require a retest so long as sufficient remnants of
the same are left.
Hence, The presumption of her innocence of the charge must
prevail with regar to Sec 5.
As for the other offense, her violation of Section 15 (Use of
Illegal Drugs), it is curious that the CA still entertained her
appeal from it despite the fact that she pleaded guilty to
the charge and did not ask the trial court to allow her to
change her plea.
since she had been under detention at the Correctional
Institute for Women since 2005 and presumably deprived of
the use of illegal substance during her entire stay there, she
should be deemed to have served the mandatory
rehabilitation period that the RTC imposed on her.
People v Watamama (2012)
Petitioner: People
Respondent : Alex Watamama
In the morning of Sept. 25, 2002, an informant reported to
SP02 Nagera in QC Anti-Drug Action Cetner, PNP Central
Police District that a certain Alex was selling drugs in Brgy.
Payatas QC. Nagera relayed the information to his superiors
which led the police superintendent to conduct a buy-bust
operation. The designated poseur buyer was given 100 peso
bills which she marked with her initials PV
The buy-bust team arrived at the area where the informant
introduced poseur-buyer P01 Vargas to the Alex as a shabu
user.
o PO1 Vargas asked to buy P200 worth of shabu
from appellant.
o When asked for payment, PO1 Vargas promptly
handed appellant the two marked bills.
o Appellant pocketed the money then took out a
plastic sachet containing 0.18 grams of shabu
and gave it to PO1 Vargas.
o PO1 Vargas inspected the contents of the plastic
sachet, then gave the pre-arranged signal that the
transaction was consummated
o Accused was arrested and thereafter brought to the
police station.
At the police station, P01 Vargas marked the confiscated
shabu and turned it over to station investigator Jimenez. He
prepared an inventory receipt gave to P/Supt. Ratuita and
which Ratuita signed.
P02 Ortiz brought plastic sachet to PNP Crime Lab for
qualitative exam
Forensic chemist Jabonillo performed the examination and
found the contents to be shabu. (weighed 0.18 grams
Defense
claimed that three men in civilian attire with handguns tucked
at their waist suddenly barged in his house and arrested him.
He was not shown any arrest warrant and nothing was found
on him when the police frisked him at the police station. He
added that
PO1 Jimenez told him that if he wanted to be released he
must reveal the identity of a big-time shabu supplier.
He denied knowing any big-time shabu supplier and also
denied selling shabu.
The RTC rendered a decision convicting appellant of illegal sale
of 0.18 grams of shabu and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.
On appeal to the CA, appellant argued that the arresting police
officers failed to comply strictly with Section 21(1) of R.A.
No. 9165, since there was
o no proof that they conducted an inventory of the
confiscated items, or even marked the same in his
presence, or the presence of his representative or
counsel, or a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, or any elected official.
CA denied appeal
prosecution was able to establish every link in the chain of
custody of the shabu from the moment of seizure to receipt for
examination and safekeeping in the PN crime lab to present
in court.
Markings and inventory of shabu done in the police station not
fatal to prosecution of case. Citing Sec 21 a of IRR of RA
9165,
o in case of warrantless seizures, the marking,
inventory, and photograph may be conducted at the
nearest office of the apprehending team as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved.
o PO1 Vargas adequately explained why the
marking was not made at the place of
confiscation since there was a crowd of people
forming when appellant was arrested.
o a photograph was taken but the digital camera was
lost. The CA also held that the defect in the pre-
operation coordination sheet with PDEA would
not affect the entrapment operation.
Issue: whether the chain of custody was sufficiently established by the
prosecution and therefore allows his acquittal? NO
Held
The prosecution failed to show how the seized evidence changed
hands from the time PO1 Vargas turned it over to the investigator
up to the time they were presented in court as evidence
It is not enough to rely merely on the testimony of PO1
Vargas who stated that she turned the seized item over to
the investigator who then prepared the letter of request for
examination.
There was no evidence on how PO2 Ortiz came into
possession of the shabu and how he delivered the seized
item for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
Neither was there any evidence how it was secured from
tampering. Instructive is the case of People v. Kamad,
where the Court enumerated the different links that the
prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect to
the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation
o first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer;
o second, the turn over of the illegal drug seized by
the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer;
o third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination; and
o fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the
court.
We are aware that there is no rule which requires the prosecution
to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had
8
 something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of
prohibited drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to
present in every case belongs to the prosecutor.
Nonetheless, as a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of
custody rule requires that
1. 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.
ideally include testimony about every link in the
chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to
the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way
that everyone who touched the exhibit would
a) describe how and from whom it was received
b) where it was and what happened to it while in the witnesses
possession.
c) condition in which it was received
d) condition in which it was delivered to the next link the chain
In this case, the over-reliance on POl Vargas' testimony and the
failure to present the investigator and P02 Ortiz are fatal to the
prosecution's case.
Since the failure to establish every link in the chain of custody of the drug
compromised its identity and integrity, which is the corpus delicti of
the crimes charged against appellant, his acquittal is therefore in
order.
People v Dahil
Petitioner: People of PH
Respondent: Ramil Dahil and Rommel Carlos
Dahil and Castro were charged in three (3) separate
Informations before the RTC.
o In Criminal Case No. DC 02-376, both were charged with
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the sale
of 26.8098 grams of marijuana in the Information
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or
deliver to a poseur buyer six (6) tea bags of dried
marijuana fruiting tops
o In Criminal Case No. DC 02-377, Dahil was charged with
possession of 20.6642 grams of marijuana in violation of
Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession and custody and control Five (5) tea
bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops
o In Criminal Case No. DC 02-378, Castro was charged with
possession of 130.8286 grams of marijuana in violation of
Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession and custody and control One (1)
brick in form wrapped in masking tape of dried
marijuana fruiting tops
PROSECUTIONS
o The agents of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) conducted surveillance and casing operations for a
couple of weeks after they received an information that a
certain alias Buddy and Mel were trafficking dried RTC
marijuana in TB Pavilion, Marisol Subd, Angeles City.
o The chief of PDEA formed a buy-bust operation team
composed of 4 police officers. The poseur buyer was P02
Corpus.
o The team proceeded to target place and upon arriving the
informant with poseur-buyer went to house of Dahil which was
within TB Pavillon compound and there they met Dahil and
Castro.
o Dahil asked how much would he be buying and then Corpus
said 200 worth of marijuana. Dahil took from his pocket 6
plastic sachets of marijuana and handed to P02 Corpz.
PO2 Corpuz frisked Dahil and recovered from his possession
another five (5) plastic sachets containing marijuana while
SPO1 Licu searched the person of Castro and confiscated
from him one (1) brick of suspected marijuana.
Both Castro and Dahil, together with the confiscated drugs,
were then brought by the buy-bust team to the PDEA office.
1. There, the seized items were marked by PO2 Corpuz and
SPO1Licu.
2. First, the six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana which were sold
by Dahil to PO2 Corpuz were marked with "A-1" to "A-6" and
with letters "RDRC," "ADGC" and "EML."
Second, the five (5) plastic sachets recovered from Dahil were
marked with "B-1" to "B-5" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC"
and "EML." Finally, the marijuana brick confiscated from
Castro was marked "C-RDRC."
3. Sergeant dela Cruz then prepared the request for laboratory
examination, affidavits of arrest and other pertinent
documents. An inventory of the seized items7 was also
prepared which was signed by Kagawad Pamintuan.
Thereafter, PO2 Corpuz brought the confiscated drugs to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for
examination, which subsequently yielded positive results for
marijuana.
The prosecution and defense entered into stipulation as to the
essential contents of the prospective testimony of the
forensic chemist, to wit:
1. That a laboratory examination request was prepared by
PO3 Dela Cruz;
2. That said letter request for laboratory examination was sent
to the PNP Crime Laboratory,Camp Olivas, San Fernando,
Pampanga;
3. That Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran David is a forensic chemist;
4. That said forensic chemist conducted an examination on
the substance subject of the letter request with qualification
that said request was not subscribedor under oath and that
the forensic chemist has no personal knowledge as from
whom and where said substance was taken;
5. That the result of the laboratory examination is embodied in
Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002; and
6. The findings and conclusion thereof.
DEFENSE
Dahil
a tricycle driver came looking for him after he had arrived
home. He saw the tricycle driver with another man already
waiting for him. He was then asked by the unknown man
whether he knew a certain Buddy in their place.
He answered that there were many persons named Buddy.
Suddenly, persons alighted from the vehicles parked in front
of his house and dragged him into one of the vehicles. He was
brought to Clark Air Base and was charged with illegal selling
and possession of marijuana.
Castro
he was watching a game of chess when he was approached
by some men who asked if he knew a certain Boy residing at
Hardian Extension.
He then replied that he did not know the said person and then
the men ordered him to board a vehicle and brought him to
Clark Air Base where he was charged withillegal possession
of marijua
9
 GUILTY for violating Secs 5 and 11 of RA 9165 and imposed
the penalty of life imprisonment and fine each for the crime of
illegal sale of marijuana
prosecution was able to prove selling and possession of illegal
drugs
marked money was lost in the custody of the police officers
but the same was not fatal since photocopy of such was
presented and identified by arresting officers.
CA
CA denied the appeal in its Decision, dated September 27,
2013. In its view, the prosecution was able to establish that the
illegal sale of marijuana actually took place. As could be
gleaned from the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, there was an actual
exchange as Dahil took out from his pocket six (6) sachets
containing marijuana, while PO2 Corpuz handled out the two
(2) 100.00 marked bills, after they agreed to transact 200.00
worth of the illegal drug.16 The charge of illegal possession of
marijuana, was also thus established by the
prosecution.17 Another five (5) plastic sachets of marijuana
were recovered from Dahils possession while one (1) brick of
marijuana from Castros possession.
the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody. PO2
Corpuz and SPO1 Licu testified that the said drugs were
marked at the police station. An inventory of the seized items
was made as shown by the Inventory Report of Property
Seized, duly signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. The Request for
Laboratory Examination revealed that the confiscated drugs
were the same items submitted to the PNP crime laboratory for
examination. On the other hand, Chemistry Report No. D-
0518-2002 showed that the specimen gave positive results to
the test of marijuana. The accused failed to show that the
confiscated marijuana items were tampered with, or switched,
before they were delivered to the crime laboratory for
examination
Issue
Whether or not the law enforcement officers substantially complied with
the chain of custody procedure required by R.A. No. 9165. - NO
Held
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 27, 2013
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05707 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellants, Ramil Doria
Dahil and Rommel Castro y Carlos, are ACQUITTED of the crime
charged against them and ordered immediately RELEASED from
custody, unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.
A buy-bust operation has been proven to be an effective way
to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted
covertly and in secrecy, It is susceptible to police abuse, the
most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.
The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court
is material if not indispensable in every prosecution for the
illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. As such, the
identity of the dangerous drugs should be established beyond
doubt by showing that the items offered in court were the same
substances bought during the buy-bust operation. (CHAIN OF
CUSTODY which removes any doubt as to identity and
integrity)
o the Prosecution does not comply with the
indispensable requirement of proving the violation of
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 when the
dangerous drugs are missing but also when there
are substantial gapsin the chain of custody of the
seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the
authenticity of the evidence presented in court.
Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain
of custody, Section 1(b) of Dangerous DrugsBoard
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A.
No. 9165, explains the said term as follows:
o "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 the prosecution offered in evidence the Inventory of the
Property Seized signed by the arresting officers and Kagawad
Pamintuan, the procedures provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were
not observed.
Sec 21 requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation,
to immediately
(1) conduct a physically inventory; and
(2) photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/orseized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof.
First, the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted
after seizure and confiscation as it was only done at the police
station.
Notably, Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR allows the
inventory to be done at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending team whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures.
In this case, however, the prosecution did not even claim
that the PDEA Office Region 3 was the nearest office
from TB Pavilion where the drugs were seized. The
prosecution also failed to give sufficient justification for
the delayed conduct of the inventory
PO2 Corpuz gave the flimsy excusethat they failed to
immediately conduct an inventory because they did not bring
with them the material or equipment for the preparation of the
documents. Such explanation is unacceptable considering
that they conducted a surveillance on the target for a couple
of weeks.26 They should have been prepared with their
equipment even before the buy-bust operation took place.
Second,there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared
the Inventory of Property Seized.
According to the CA decision, it was Sergeant dela Cruz who
prepared the said document.
PO2 Cruz on the other hand, testified that it was their
investigator who prepared the document while SPO1 Licus
testimony was that a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin was their
investigator.
Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items
were photographed in the presence of the accused or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ,
and any elected public official.
The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
XPN
Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the
rigorous requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165,
jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is
sufficient.
Failure to strictly comply with the law does not necessarily
render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized or
confiscated from him inadmissible.
The issue of non-compliance with the said section is not of
admissibility, but of weight to be given on the evidence.
Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR requires "substantial"
and not necessarily "perfect adherence," as long as it
can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are preserved as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused
10
People v Malilin :
HOW CHAIN OF CUSTODY OR MOVEMENT OF SEIZED EVIDENCE
SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AND WHY SHOULD IT BE SHOWN
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
1.describe how and from whom it was received,
2.where it was and what happened to it while in the witness
possession,
3. the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.
People v Kamad
WHAT ARE THE LINKS THAT THE PROSECUTION MUST
ESTABLISH IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN A BUY-BUST
SITUATION
First link: MARKING of the Drugs Recovered from the Accused by
the Apprehending Officer
What is marking?
o Marking" means the placing by the apprehending
officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and
signature on the items seized.
Why is is done?
o succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the
markings as reference
o serves to separate the marked evidence from the
corpus of all other similar or related evidence from
the time they are seized from the accused until they
are disposed of at the end of the criminal
proceedings, thus, preventing switching,
planting or contamination of evidence
NOTE: marking is not found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different from the
inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 of the said
law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this
Court had consistently held that failure of the authorities to
immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt
on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.
IN THIS CASE:
Worse, not all of the seized drugs were properly marked. As
noted by the RTC, Exhibit B-3 RC RD, Exhibit A-5 RC RD and
Exhibit A-6 RD RC did not have the initials of the
apprehending officers on the back.
Bearing in mind the importance of marking the seized items,
these lapses in the procedure are too conspicuous and cannot
be ignored. They placed uncertainty as to the identity of the
corpus delicti from the moment of seizure until it was belatedly
marked at the PDEA Office.
Second Link: TURNOVER of the Seized Drugs by the Apprehending
Officer to the INVESTIGATING OFFICER (IO)
police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it
over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier
to the police crime laboratory for testing.
Why? Because it will be the investigating officer who shall
conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary
documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the
investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs
to properly prepare the required documents
IN THIS CASE:
The investigator in this case was a certain SPO4
Jamisolamin.Surprisingly, there was no testimony from the
witnesses as to the turnover of the seized items to SPO4
Jamisolamin.
It is highly improbable for an investigator in a drug-related
case to effectively perform his work without having custody of
the seized items.
Again, the case of the prosecution is forcing this Court to
resort to guesswork as to whether PO2 Corpuz and SPO1
Licu gave the seized drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin as the
investigating officer or they had custody of the marijuana all
night while SPO4 Jamisolamin was conducting his
investigation on the same items.
Third Link: TURNOVER by the Investigating Officer of the Illegal
Drugs to the FORENSIC CHEMIST (FC)
Once the illegal drug s delivered to the forensic chemist, the
seized drugs arrive at the forensic laboratory, it will be the lab
technician who will test and verify the nature of the substance
In this case, it was only during his cross-examination that PO2
Corpuz provided some information on the delivery of the
seized drugs to Camp Olivas. There was little detail on how
the seized marijuana was handled and transferred from the
PDEA Office in Angeles City to the crime laboratory in Camp
Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Corpuz kept
possession of the seized drugs overnight without giving
details on the safekeeping of the items
The forensic chemist who conducted the tests on the subject
drugs, did not appear in court despite the numerous
subpoenas sent to her. The prosecution and the defense
agreed to stipulate on the essential points of her proffered
testimony.
o "that said forensic chemist conducted an
examination on the substance of the letter-
request with qualification that said request was
not subscribed or under oath and that forensic
chemist has no personal knowledge as from whom
and where said substance was taken."
o Hence the forensic chemist had no knowledge as to
who received the seized marijuana at the crime
laboratory.
People v. Beran
o The police officer, who both served as
apprehending and investigating officer, claimed that
he personally took the drug to the laboratory for
testing, but there was no showing who received the
drug from him.
o The records also showed that he submitted the
sachet to the laboratory only on the next day,
without explaining how he preserved his exclusive
custody thereof overnight.
o Fatal omission acquittal
Fourth Link: TURNOVER of the Marked Illegal Drug Seized by the
Forensic Chemist to the COURT.
submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the
court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. No
testimonial or documentary evidence was given whatsoever
as to how the drugs were kept while in the custody of the
forensic chemist until it was transferred to the court.
The forensic chemist should have personally testified on
the safekeeping of the drugs but the parties resorted to a
general stipulation of her testimony. Although several
subpoenae were sent to the forensic chemist, only a brown
envelope containing the seized drugs arrived in court
The Court can only conclude that, indeed, there was no
compliance with the procedural requirements of Section
21 of R.A. No. 9165 because of the inadequate physical
inventory and the lack of photography of the marijuana
allegedly confiscated from Dahil and Castro. No explanation
was offered for the non-observance of the rule.
The prosecution cannot apply the saving mechanism of
Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 because it miserably
failed to prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items were preserved. The four links required to
establish the proper chain of custody were breached with
irregularity and lapses.
Regularity of the performance of duty cannot be applied in this
case because the presumption stands when no reason exists
in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the
performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the
presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused
11
12