SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
OMBUDSMAN; POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTIES. The power of the
Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory. The Ombudsman’s power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority is well founded in the Constitution and RA 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989. Gemma P. Cabalit v. COA-Region VII/Filadelfo S. Apit v. COA, Legal and Adjudication, Region VII/Leonardo G. Olaivar, et al, v. Hon. Primo C. Miro, et al, G.R. Nos. 180326/180341/180342, 17 January 2012.
BP 22; GRAVAMEN OF OFFENSE. The gravamen of the offense
punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the
making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. Edgardo Medalla v. Resurreccion D. Laxa, G.R. No. 193362, 18 January 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; BUY-BUST; PRIOR SURVEILLANCE. Prior
surveillance not a necessity for the validity of the buy-bust operation. In People v. Padua, the Supreme Court ruled that a prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. For as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance. People of the Philippines v. Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso @ “Bong Pango,” G.R. No. 186392, 18 January 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY. A review of the records
establishes that the procedure laid down by RA 9165 and its IRR was not followed in this case. Several lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are readily apparent. To start with, no photograph of the seized
shabu was taken. Secondly, the buy-bust team did not immediately
mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime and in the presence of Relato and witnesses. Thirdly, although there was testimony about the marking of the seized items being made at the police station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence of Relato or his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no representative of the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official attended the taking of the physical inventory and to sign the inventory. The marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items will use the markings as reference. It further
2012-2013
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
ON
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
By: Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza
serves to segregate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar and related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, “planting,” or contamination of evidence. It is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody.
People of the Philippines v. Darwin Relato y Ajero, G.R. No. 173794, 18 January 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY. Chain of Custody is
defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: “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.” The procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team underscored the uncertainty about the identity and integrity of the shabu admitted in evidence against the accused. They highlighted the failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody, by which the incriminating evidence would have been authenticated. An unavoidable consequence of the non-establishment of the chain of custody was the serious doubt on whether the shabu presented as evidence was really the shabu supposedly seized from Relato. People of the Philippines v. Darwin Relato y Ajero, G.R. No. 173794, 18 January 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. The crime of conspiracy to
commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist. Simply put, the
circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165. The fact that the information for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 that was filed against the petitioner and Saunar alleged that they “conspired and helped each other” is immaterial since conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs.
Reynaldo Posiquit v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 193943, 16 January 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; INTENT TO POSSESS. In a prosecution for
possession of illegal substances, proof of animus possidendi on the part of the accused is indispensable. But animus possidendi is a state of mind, and is thus to be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior and contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. It may and must be inferred usually from the attendant events in each particular case. Upon the State’s presenting to the trial court of the facts and circumstances from which to infer the existence of animus possidendi, it becomes incumbent upon the Defense to rebut the inference with evidence that the accused did not exercise power and control of the illicit thing in question, and did not intend to do so. For that purpose, a mere unfounded assertion of the accused that he did not know that he had possession of the illegal drug is insufficient, and animus
possidendi is then presumed to exist on his part because he was
thereby shown to have performed an act that the law prohibited and punished. People of the Philippines v. Geron Delos Santos y Maristela, G.R. No. 170839, 18 January 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; INTENT TO POSSESS. It cannot be disputed
that Delos Santos had animus possidendi. His conduct prior to and following his apprehension evinced his guilty knowledge of the contents of the gift-wrapped box as shabu. His uncorroborated story of having been summoned to help in the cleaning of Unit 706 was a
sham excuse that he peddled to explain his presence in the Somerset Condominium. His explanation was useless, however, because he was no longer employed as a janitor of the Somerset Condominium at the time of his arrest after being already terminated from employment. Correlatively, his willingness to run for Wilson the errand of delivering the gift-wrapped box to the unnamed person near the Jollibee Vito Cruz extension branch proved that he was serving as a courier of
shabu. Besides, his guilty knowledge was confirmed by his
unreasonable refusal to exit from Unit 706 despite the demand of the NBI agents to do so, and by his stealthy transfer to the adjoining Unit 705. Had he been truly innocent, he would have voluntarily cooperated with the NBI agents instead of attempting to escape from them. People of the Philippines v. Geron Delos Santos y Maristela, G.R. No. 170839, 18 January 2012.
FENCING; ELEMENTS. The elements of fencing are 1) a robbery or
theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object taken during that robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew or should have known that the thing was derived from that crime; and (4) he intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for another. Here, someone carnapped Mantequilla’s Nissan Safari on May 25, 1998. Two years later in December 2000, Dimat sold it to Delgado for P850,000.00. Dimat knew that the Nissan Safari he bought from Tolentino was not properly documented. He said that Tolentino showed him its old certificate of registration and official receipt. But this certainly could not be true because, the vehicle having been carnapped, Tolentino had no documents to show. That Tolentino was unable to make good on his promise to produce new documents undoubtedly confirmed to Dimat that the Nissan Safari came from an illicit source. Still, Dimat sold the same to Sonia
Delgado who apparently made no effort to check the papers covering her purchase. Hence, the decision of the Court of Appeals finding Dimat guilty of violation of the Anti-Fencing Law is affirmed. Mel Dimat v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181184, 25 January 2012.
SANDIGANBAYAN; JURISDICTION. Petitioners maintain that the
jurisdictional facts necessary to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter in CC No. 0033-A have yet to be established. Petitioners claim that the Republic failed to prove the ill-gotten nature of the sequestered coconut farmers’ UCPB shares. Accordingly, the controversy is removed from the subject matter jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and necessarily any decision rendered on the merits, such as PSJ-A and PSJ-F, is void. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the subdivided amended complaints. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The question on whether a given suit comes within the pale of a statutory conferment is determined by the allegations in the complaint regardless of whether or not the plaintiff will be entitled at the end to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Judging from the allegations of the defendants’ illegal acts thereat made, it is fairly obvious that both CC Nos. 0033-A and CC 0033-F partake, in the context of EOs 1, 2 and 14, series of 1986, the nature of ill-gotten wealth suits. Both deal with the recovery of sequestered shares, property or business enterprises claimed, as alleged in the corresponding basic complaints, to be ill-gotten assets of President Marcos, his cronies and nominees and acquired by taking undue advantage of relationships or influence and/or through or as a result of improper use, conversion or diversion of government funds or property. Recovery of these assets — determined as prima facie ill-gotten — falls within the unquestionable jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Philippine Coconut Producers Federation Inc. (COCOFED), et al v. Republic of the Philippines, respondent; Wigberto
E. Tanada, et al, intervenors/Danilo S. Ursua v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177857-58 and G.R. No. 178193, 24 January 2012.
SANDIGANBAYAN; JURISDICTION. PD 1606, as amended by RA
7975 and EO 14, Series of 1986, vests the Sandiganbayan with original jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases instituted pursuant to and in connection with EOs 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. Correlatively, the PCGG Rules and Regulations defines the term “Ill-Gotten Wealth” as “any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of persons within the purview of [EOs] 1 and 2, acquired by them directly, or indirectly thru dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates.” The Republic’s
averments in the amended complaints, particularly those detailing the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants, sufficiently reveal that the subject matter thereof comprises the recovery by the Government of ill-gotten wealth acquired by then President Marcos, his cronies or their associates and dummies through the unlawful, improper utilization or diversion of coconut levy funds aided by PD 755 and other sister decrees. There was no actual need for Republic, as plaintiff a quo, to adduce evidence to show that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaints as it leaned on the averments in the initiatory pleadings to make visible the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the ill-gotten wealth complaints. A perusal of the allegations easily reveals the sufficiency of the statement of matters disclosing the claim of the government against the coco levy funds and the assets acquired directly or indirectly through said funds as ill-gotten wealth. Moreover, the Court finds no rule that directs the plaintiff to first prove the subject matter jurisdiction of the court before which the complaint is filed. Rather, such burden falls on the shoulders of defendant in the hearing of a motion to dismiss anchored on said ground or a
preliminary hearing thereon when such ground is alleged in the answer. Philippine Coconut Producers Federation Inc. (COCOFED), et al v. Republic of the Philippines, respondent; Wigberto E. Tanada, et al, intervenors/Danilo S. Ursua v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177857-58 and G.R. No. 178193, 24 January 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; BURDEN OF PROOF. In the prosecution of
possession of illegal drugs, the prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drugs. With the prosecution’s failure to prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner’s control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law’s own starting perspective on the status of the accused – in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Ruben Castillo @ Boy Castillo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185128, 30 January 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS. In every prosecution for the illegal possession of shabu,
the following essential elements must be established: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug. Ruben Castillo @ Boy Castillo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185128, 30 January 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; ALIBI AND FRAME-UP. Alibi and frame up
are weak forms of defense usually resorted to in drug-related cases. The Court is careful in appreciating them and giving them probable value because this type of defense is easy to concoct. Also, the Court does realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the police officers’ alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. Bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by SPO4 Taruc of Arriola as the one who sold them the shabu. For the defense’s position to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. This, unfortunately, Arriola failed to supply. What she made was a bare allegation of frame-up without presenting any credible witness that would support her claim. Furthermore, she failed to show any motive on the part of the arresting officers to implicate her in a crime she claimed she did not commit. People of the Philippines v. Flordeliza Arriola y De Lara, G.R. No. 187736, 8 February 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL SALE; ELEMENTS. To secure
a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. What is material in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. In this case, the requisites for illegal sale of shabu were competently and convincingly proven by the Prosecution. PO2 Tayag, as the poseur-buyer, attested that Bautista
sold shabu to him during a legitimate buy-bust operation. According to Forensic Chemist Arturo, the substance subject of the transaction, which weighed 0.05 gram, was examined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. PO2 Caragdag declared that he recovered the buy-bust money from Bautista’s hand right after the sale. Further, the Prosecution later presented as evidence both the sachet of shabu subject of the sale and the buy-bust money used in the buy-bust operation. People of the Philippines v. Cesar Bautista y Santos, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL POSSESSION; ELEMENTS.
For illegal possession of a dangerous drug, like shabu, the elements are: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug were similarly competently and convincingly established by the Prosecution. SPO1 Ybañez stated that upon seeing the pre-arranged signal given by PO2 Tayag, he and the other members of the team proceeded to arrest Bautista; and that he frisked Bautista and then recovered six other plastic sachets from Bautista’s pocket. Undoubtedly, the frisking was legally authorized as a search incidental to the lawful arrest of Bautista for evidence in the commission of illegal drug pushing. People of the Philippines v. Cesar Bautista y Santos, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL SALE; ELEMENTS.
Jurisprudence holds that the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs are the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The testimonies of Romano, corroborated by his fellow NBI investigators Jimenez and Dizon and informant Cedeño
established the sale and delivery by accused-appellant Clarite to Romano of what was initially believed to be 50 grams of shabu in four plastic sachets, in exchange for what Clarite thought was P50,000.00. Romano positively identified accused-appellant Clarite as the person who sold the plastic sachets of shabu to him. It was likewise clear from the evidence on record that P/Insp. Clemen examined the contents of the plastic sachets sold to Romano, and confirmed that they contained methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), even though the total weight was only 45.8712 grams. P/Insp. Clemen was also able to verify that both hands of accused-appellant were positive for the presence of bright orange ultraviolet fluorescent powder, thus, corroborating the testimonies of the NBI investigators that he received the counterfeit money which were dusted with such powder. This also belies the testimony of appellant that he never held the marked money. Thus, the accused-appellant’s conviction under RA 9165 is affirmed. People of the Philippines v. Arnel Clarite y Salazar, G.R. No. 187157, 15 February 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS; ELEMENTS.
The essential elements to be established in the prosecution of illegal sale of marijuana are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (3) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. In this case, the evidence on record showed the presence of all the above elements. The witnesses for the prosecution successfully proved that a buy-bust operation took place and the block of marijuana subject of the sale was brought to, and duly identified in court. PO3 Garcia, the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellants as the persons who sold to him one block of marijuana dried leaves wrapped in a
newspaper in exchange for the sum of P1,000.00. PO3 Garcia’s testimony was corroborated on material points by his team leader, SPO3 De Guzman, SPO3 Galliguez, and SPO2 Natividad. PNP Forensic Chemist Police Supt. Theresa Ann Cid examined the items seized and found them to be positive for marijuana. People of the Philippines v. Teofilo Honrado and Romulo Honrado, G.R. No. 182197, 27 February 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS; ELEMENTS.
It was held in People v. Hernandez that the following essential elements must be established in order to secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. People v. Naquita states that 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. The above elements have been sufficiently established by the prosecution. PO2 Memoracion was the poseur-buyer and he identified the accused-appellant as the seller. The object of the sale was the sachet containing eight centigrams (0.08 grams) of shabu, which bore the marking “RAM-1,” and the consideration paid by the poseur-buyer therefor consisted of the P200 marked money. PO2 Memoracion also categorically stated that the object of the sale was in fact handed to him by the accused-appellant after he gave her the marked money.
People of the Philippines v. Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias “Rose,” G.R. No. 188132, 29 February 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; CHAIN OF CUSTODY. In many cases,
that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, “as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most important factor 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. Hence, the prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of RA 9165, will not render Mendoza’s arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible. Here, it was shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been preserved. The plastic sachet containing shabu was marked, kept, and delivered to the forensic chemist by the same officer who received it from Mendoza. Ching, the poseur-buyer, marked the plastic sachet he bought from Mendoza with “SOG-1” after the buy-bust team arrested her. Thereafter, the marked plastic sachet, together with the laboratory request, was delivered by Ching himself to Macapagal for examination. Macapagal’s Chemistry Report showed that she received a plastic sachet marked “SOG-1” for examination at around 3:20 p.m. After she completed her examination at 5:20 p.m., she placed the same marked plastic sachet in a small brown envelope, which she in turn dated, signed, and sealed with a staple wire. It is therefore clear, that the prosecution was able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the shabu, from the moment it was seized from Mendoza, up to the time it was presented during the trial as proof of the corpus delicti.People of the Philippines v. Emily Mendoza y Sartin, G.R. No. 189327, 29 February 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL SALE; ELEMENTS. The elements
necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are the (1) identities of the buyer and the seller, object, and consideration, and (2) delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.
The testimonial and the documentary pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against the appellant establish the presence of these elements. First, the identity of the seller was duly established. Second, the police officers saw the appellant handing the sachet to the poseur-buyer in exchange of the P100.00 peso bill that the appellant earlier received from the poseur-buyer.
People of the Philippines v. Jerome Paler, G.R. No. 188103, 7 March 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; BUY BUST OPERATION; COORDINATION WITH PDEA. On appeal, accused-appellant assailed his conviction by
insisting that the buy bust operation conducted by the Philippine National Police (PNP) which was instrumental to his arrest was invalid because of alleged violation of Section 86 of R.A. 9165, requiring that the PNP maintain close coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on all drug related matters. The Supreme Court ruled that accused-appellant’s contention is unmeritorious. It is settled that Section 86 of R.A. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the law enforcers’ failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. Section 86, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This “silence” [cannot] be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.” People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, 11 April 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED OR REGULATED DRUGS; ELEMENTS. Illegal possession of prohibited or
regulated drugs is committed when the following elements concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law;
and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. All these elements were established beyond reasonable doubt in the cases against accused-appellant. The prosecution witnesses consistently and categorically testified that pursuant to a search warrant duly issued by a judge, they found and seized from accused-appellant’s house and actual possession a brick of marijuana leaves and heat-sealed sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu.People v. Velazquez, G.R. No. 177244, 11 April 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS.
This appeal involves two distinct drug-related offenses, namely: illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires: (a) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (b) the presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti, or the dangerous drugs themselves. It is crucial that the Prosecution establishes the identity of the seized dangerous drugs in a way that the integrity thereof has been well preserved from the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the time of presentation as evidence in court. Nothing less than a faithful compliance with this duty is demanded of all law enforcers arresting drug pushers and drug possessors and confiscating and seizing the dangerous drugs and substances from them. Here, the Prosecution failed to demonstrate a faithful compliance by the arresting lawmen of the rule on chain of custody. Further, the State did not establish the identity of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from petitioner with the same exacting certitude required for a finding of guilt. Although PO2 Payumo declared that he was the one who had received the sachet of shabu (“RRS-1”) from petitioner and who had confiscated the two sachets of shabu (“RRS-2”) from petitioner, all of which he had then sealed, nothing more to support the fact that the evidence thus seized had remained intact was adduced. Also, the Prosecution did not
show to whom the seized articles had been turned over following the conduct of the laboratory examination, and how the seized articles had been kept in a manner that preserved their integrity until their final presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Such lapses of the Prosecution were fatal to its proof of guilt because they demonstrated that the chain of custody did not stay unbroken, thereby raising doubt on the integrity and identity of the dangerous drugs as evidence of the corpus delicti of the crimes charged. Petitioner is acquitted. Rogelio S. Reyes v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 180177, 18 April 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; BUY BUST; REQUIRED PROCEDURES.
Given the nature of buy-bust operations and the resulting preventive procedural safeguards crafted in R.A. 9165, courts must tread carefully before giving full credit to the testimonies of those who conducted the operations. Although it has been ruled in the past that mere procedural lapses in the conduct of a buy-bust operation are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecution’s cause, so long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, courts must still thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards drawn by the law. Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of law enforcers, we stress that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. Here, the conduct of the buy-bust operations was peppered with defects, which raises doubts on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items from accused-appellant. First, there were material inconsistencies in the marking of the seized items. Second, the SAID-SOTF failed to show genuine and sufficient effort to seek the third-party representatives enumerated
under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. Third, the SAID-SOTF failed to duly accomplish the Certificate of Inventory and to take photos of the seized items pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. Accused-appellant Sammy Umipang y Abdul is therefore acquitted of the charges in Criminal Cases No. 14935-D-TG and No. 14936-D-TG on the ground of reasonable doubt. People of the Philippines v. Sammy Umipag y Abdul, G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES. Non-compliance with the prescribed procedural
requirements does not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held valid, provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been properly preserved. These conditions, however, were not met in the present case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification for the failure of SPO4 Mendoza to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized items. As held in People v. De Guzman, the failure to follow the procedure mandated under RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations must be adequately explained. The justifiable ground for the non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. In dubio pro
reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance,
acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right. Petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes are acquitted for the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 190749, 25 April 2012.
B.P. 22; PRESCRIPTION. Under Section 1 of Act No. 3326 which is
the law applicable to B.P. 22 cases, “[v]iolations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in
accordance with the following rules:… after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years.” Under Section 2 of the same Act, “[t]he prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. Since B.P. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes in four (4) years in accordance with the aforecited law. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should be tolled upon the institution of proceedings against the guilty person. People of the Philippines v. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, 13 June 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY. In cases of illegal sale
and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the chain of custody over the dangerous drug must be shown to establish the corpus delicti. The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very
corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under R.A.
9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. Under Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, “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. People of the Philippines v. Gomer S. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, 13 June 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. In order to convict appellant for illegal possession of a
must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements: (a) the appellant was in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the appellant freely and consciously possessed the drug. In this case, the fact of possession by appellant of the bag containing the shabu was not established in the first place. In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused. While a lone witness’ testimony is sufficient to convict an accused in certain instances, the testimony must be clear, consistent, and credible—qualities we cannot ascribe to this case. Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must both come from a credible witness and be credible in itself – tested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years. Clearly from the foregoing, the prosecution failed to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was indeed in possession of shabu, and that he freely and consciously possessed the same. People of the Philippines v. Zafra Maraorao y Macabalang, G.R. No. 174369, 20 June 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. On appeal,
the accused-appellants questioned the Court Appeals’ affirmation of their conviction by arguing that the arresting officers failed to comply with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165. They claim that the officers failed to conduct the following: (1) make a physical inventory of the seized items; (2) take photographs of the items; and (3) establish that a representative each from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official had been contacted and was present during the marking of the items. In this case, the records are bereft of any indication that would show that the prosecution was able to establish
the arresting officers’ compliance with the procedural safeguards under R.A. 9165. Neither do the records contain any physical inventory report or photograph of the confiscated items. None of the arresting officers testified that they had conducted a physical inventory or taken pictures of the items. Nor did they state that there was even any attempt to contact a representative from the media and the DOJ, and an elected public official. Nowhere can it be found that the marking of the items was done in the presence of any of the said third-party representatives. In all these major lapses, no one gave so much as an explanation of why the procedure was not followed, or whether there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so. The arresting officers and the prosecution simply did not bother discussing these matters. R.A. 9165 has a strict mandate for the arresting officers to comply with the afore-quoted procedural safeguards. People of the Philippines v. Joel Ancheta y Osan, et al, G.R. No. 197371, 13 June 2012.
RA 3019; PRESCRIPTION. Violations falling under Section 3(e) of
R.A. 3019 prescribe in fifteen (15) years as provided under Section 11 of R.A. 3019. Petitioner maintains that, although the charge against respondents was for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, its prosecution relates to its efforts to recover the ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos and of his family and cronies. Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees is not barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. But the Supreme Court has already settled in Presidential
Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto that
Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, not to criminal cases such as the complaint against respondents in OMB-0-90-2810. Thus, the prosecution of offenses arising from, relating or incident to, or
involving ill-gotten wealth contemplated in Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution may be barred by prescription. Notably, Section 11 of R.A. 3019 now provides that the offenses committed under that law prescribes in 15 years. Republic of the Philippines v. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 139930, 26 June 2012.
R.A. 3019; SECTION 3(E) ELEMENTS. Under Section 3(e) of RA
3019, one can be charged with corrupt practices of public officer by “[c]ausing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. The said crime has the following essential elements: (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. People of the Philippines v. Aristeo E. Atienza, Rodrigo D. Manongson, Crispin M. Egarque, and the Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 171671, 18 June 2012.
R.A. 3019; SECTION 3(E) ELEMENTS. As aptly concluded by the
Sandiganbayan in the assailed resolution, the second element of the crime as charged was not sufficiently established by the prosecution. Manifest partiality and evident bad faith are modes that are separate and distinct from each other so that the existence of any of these two modes would be sufficient to satisfy the second element. However, manifest partiality was not present in this case. The evidence adduced did not show that accused-movants favored other persons
who were similarly situated with the private complainant. Eyewitness Alexander Singson categorically pointed accused Manongsong and Egarque as the persons who destroyed/removed the second fence. Private complainant lamented that he was not even given notice of their intent to destroy the fence. However, the same could not be considered evident bad faith as the prosecution evidence failed to show that the destruction was for a dishonest purpose, ill will or self-interest. People of the Philippines v. Aristeo E. Atienza, Rodrigo D. Manongson, Crispin M. Egarque, and the Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 171671, 18 June 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF SHABU. As to the
crime of illegal possession of shabu, the prosecution clearly proved the presence of the following essential elements of the crime: (a) the accused [was] in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession [was] not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. After the arrest of the accused-appellant, seventeen (17) heat-sealed sachets of white substance were found in his possession. The chemistry report showed that the white substance in the plastic sachets tested for shabu. There was no showing that such possession was authorized by law. The conviction of the accused-appellant by the lower courts is, therefore, sustained.
People of the Philippines v. John Brian Amarillo y Mapa a.k.a. “Jao Mapa,” G.R. No. 194721, 15 August 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL SALE OF SHABU. After a buy-bust
operation conducted by the police operatives, accused was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. To prove illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. And, to secure conviction, it is material to establish that the
transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence. Here, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant, not being authorized by law, sold a sachet of shabu to PO1 Mendoza in a buy-bust operation. Further, the seized items, together with the result of the laboratory examination and the marked money were all presented in court.
People of the Philippines v. John Brian Amarillo y Mapa a.k.a. “Jao Mapa,” G.R. No. 194721, 15 August 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 21, R.A. 9165. The defense argues
that the arresting officers did not testify that the marking of the seized items were done in the presence of the persons mentioned by the law and its implementing rules; and that testimonies on how the confiscated items were turned over to the investigator for examination were lacking. It is well-settled that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. An accused may still be found guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe the requirements provided under Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165, for as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken.
People of the Philippines v. John Brian Amarillo y Mapa a.k.a. “Jao Mapa,” G.R. No. 194721, 15 August 2012.
FORFEITURE; DUE PROCESS. This case seeks to annul and set
aside the Sandiganbayan Resolution which ordered the forfeiture of some of the properties of the late NBI Director, Jolly R. Bugarin pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court (“SC”) in Republic of
the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan. The heirs of Bugarin pray that the
Sandiganbayan be compelled to conduct hearings for the purpose of properly determining the properties of Bugarin that should be
forfeited in favor of the Republic, this despite the fact that the SC in
Republic has already decreed that properties of Bugarin acquired from
1968 to 1980 which were disproportionate to his lawful income during the said period be forfeited in favor of the Republic. The SC held that Bugarin was accorded due process. He was given his day in court to prove that his acquired properties were lawfully attained. The summary of properties acquired by Bugarin during his tenure as NBI Director was based on his very own exhibits. From this enumeration, the SC set aside those properties that had been liquidated or those that had been obtained in 1981 onwards. Even those properties the acquisition dates of which could no longer be determined were also excluded, all to the benefit of Bugarin. What remained was a trimmed-down listing of properties from which the Sandiganbayan may choose to execute the forfeiture order of the SC. The essence of due process is the right to be heard. Bugarin or his heirs were certainly not denied that right. Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. The Heirs of Jolly R. Bugarin namely Ma. Aileen H. Bugarin, Ma. Linda B. Abiog and Ma. Annette B. Sumulong v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 174431, August 6, 2012.
JURISDICTION; SANDIGANBAYAN. The Sandiganbayan maintains
that Section 4(a)(1)(g) of RA 8249 which defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, cannot apply to the accused, Bello, because, while he held the highest rank among those who allegedly conspired to commit the crime charged, he did not hold any of the government positions enumerated under that section, i.e., presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations. The term “manager” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary is one who has charge of the corporation and control of its businesses, or of its branches, establishments, divisions, or departments, and who is
vested with a certain amount of discretion and independent judgment. Under this definition, the Supreme Court held that respondent Bello was covered under the term “manager,” he having charge of the Armed Forces of the Philippines-Retirement and Separation Benefit System Legal Department when the questioned transactions took place. As such, he is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. People of the Philippines v. Meinrado Enrique A. Bello, et al., G.R. No. 166948-59, 29 August 2012.
JURISDICTION; SANDIGANBAYAN. Respondent Bello argues that
the Sandiganbayan does not exercise jurisdiction over him because his rank at the time of the commission of the acts complained of was merely that of Police Superintendent in the Philippine National Police. However, the Information does not charge him for offenses relating to the regular police work of a police officer of his rank. He is rather charged for offenses he committed in relation to his office, namely, that of a “manager” of the Legal Department of the Armed Forces of the Philippines-Retirement and Separation Benefit System (“AFP-RSBS”), a government-owned and controlled corporation. What is needed is that the public officials mentioned by law must commit the offense described in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 while in the performance of official duties or in relation to the office being held. Here, the OMB charged Bello with using his office as Legal Department Head to manipulate the documentations of AFP-RSBS land acquisitions to the prejudice of the government. People of the Philippines v. Meinrado Enrique A. Bello, et al, G.R. No. 166948-59, 29 August 2012.
OMBUDSMAN; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE OMBUDSMAN.
Petitioner was designated as a Special Collecting Officer at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Customs House, Collection Division, Pasay City. The Audit Observation Memorandum dated November 26, 2002, reported that petitioner had an unremitted collection from the sale of accountable forms with money value and stamps. Based on
the analysis of the monthly sales of accountable forms and stamps, petitioner failed to remit a total of P53, 214,258.00 from January 2000 to October 2002. The Ombudsman rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. Insisting on his innocence, petitioner claims that no competent evidence was presented before the Ombudsman to show that he is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. The Court (“SC”) held that questions of fact may not be the subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court as the SC is not a trier of facts. As a rule, findings of fact of the Ombudsman, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding upon the SC unless there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. There is none here. There is substantial evidence to show that petitioner failed to remit the amount of P53,658,371.00 from the sale of accountable forms with money value and documentary stamps from January 2000 up to October 2002.Ernesto A. Fajardo v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al, G.R. No. 173268, August 23, 2012.
ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS. After a buy-bust operation
conducted by the police operatives, accused were charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. In ruling against the accused, the Supreme Court (“SC”) cited People of the Philippines v. Ricky Unisa
y Islan, where it held that the sale of prohibited drugs is
consummated upon delivery of the drugs to the buyer: “For a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. Clearly, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the
consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated.” As borne by the records, all the above elements constituting the sale of shabu by the appellants were clearly testified to by PO Hamdani who averred that he received P1,000.00 worth of shabu from accused after the latter gave the buy-bust money to De Jesus. Accordingly, the SC found the accused guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. People of the Philippines v. Ronald De Jesus y Apacible and Amelito Dela Cruz y Pua, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September 2012.
ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS. Accused cites several
irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and in the presentation of the corpus delicti. The Court (“SC”) gave no credence to his arguments. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. Sistemio, the poseur-buyer in this case, positively testified that the sale of shabu actually took place when he himself parted with the marked money and received the shabu from appellant. Yu corroborated Sistemio’s narration, as he also personally witnessed the transaction given that he was posted a few meters away from Sistemio and the accused. The SC also found that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team under the chain of custody rule. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has established beyond doubt an unbroken link in the chain of custody. Hence, it has been established
by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant here sold shabu.
People of the Philippine v. Mohamad Angkob y Mlang, G.R. No. 191062, 19 September 2012.
ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS. The Supreme Court
affirmed the conviction of the accused for illegal sale of dangerous drugs after finding that the following elements were sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereto. The identity of the buyer and the seller were both established by the prosecution, appellant being the seller and PO1 Soquiña as the poseur-buyer. The object of the transaction was the five sachets of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and the consideration was the P500.00 marked money. Both such object and consideration have also been sufficiently established by testimonial and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. As to the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, PO1 Soquiña caught appellant in flagrante
delicto selling and delivering the prohibited substance during a
buy-bust operation. He also personally handed to appellant the marked money as payment for the same. Clearly, the above-mentioned elements are present in this case. People of the Philippines v. Calexto D. Fundales, G.R. No. 184606, 5 September 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; BUY-BUST OPERATION. Accused Robelo
asserts that the alleged buy-bust operation is tainted with infirmity due to the absence of a prior surveillance or investigation. Moreover, per the testimony of PO2 Tubbali, accused did not say anything when the former was introduced to him as an interested buyer of shabu. Accused points out that it is contrary to human nature that the seller would say nothing to the buyer who is a complete stranger to him. The Supreme Court sustained the validity of the buy-bust operation. A buy-bust operation has been proven to be an effective mode of
apprehending drug pushers. In this regard, police authorities are given wide latitude in employing their own ways of trapping or apprehending drug dealers inflagrante delicto. There is no prescribed method on how the operation is to be conducted. As ruled in People v.
Garcia, the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect
the legality of the buy-bust operation as there is no textbook method of conducting the same. As long as the constitutional rights of the suspected drug dealer are not violated, the regularity of the operation will always be upheld. Furthermore, the law does not prescribe as an element of the crime that the vendor and the vendee be familiar with each other. As aptly held by the Court of Appeals in this case, peddlers of illicit drugs have been known with ever increasing casualness and recklessness to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not.People of the Philippines v. Joseph Robelo y Tungala, G.R. No. 184181, 26 November 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; EVIDENCE; POSSESSION. Accused
Eyam was caught in possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. He failed to show that he was authorized to possess the same. By his mere possession of the drug, there is already a prima facie evidence of knowledge, which he failed to rebut. Supreme Court sustained his conviction for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drug, in violation of Section 11 of Article II of R.A. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. People of the Philippines v. George Eyam y Watang, G.R. No. 184056, 26 November 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA; ELEMENTS. The Regional Trial Court and the
Court of Appeals convicted Godofredo of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) possession or
control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. The prosecution here has convincingly established that Godofredo was in possession of drug paraphernalia such as aluminum foil, aluminium tooter and lighter, all of which were offered in evidence. The corresponding receipt and inventory of the seized shabu and other drug paraphernalia were likewise presented in evidence. Moreover, Police Superintendent Leonidas Diaz Castillo attested to the veracity of the contents of these documents. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts.People of the Philippines v. Godofredo Mariano y Feliciano and Allan Doringo y Gunan, G.R. No. 191193, 14 November 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS.
Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. All these elements were duly established by the prosecution in this case. Appellants were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu during a buy-bust operation conducted by the buy-bust team. The poseur-buyer, PO1 Olleres, positively testified that the sale took place and that appellants sold the shabu. Simply put, Godofredo produced two (2) plastic sachets containingshabu and gave it to PO1 Olleres in exchange for P1,000.00. Also, Allan had offered and given two (2) more sachets containing shabu to PO3 Razo, who in turn, handed him P600.00. PO3 Razo corroborated the account of PO1 Olleres. The result of the
laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride on the white crystalline substances inside the four (4)
plastic sachets confiscated from appellants. The marked money was presented in evidence. Thus, the delivery of the illicit drug to PO1 Olleres and PO3 Razo and the receipt by appellants of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. People of the Philippines v. Godofredo Mariano y Feliciano and Allan Doringo y Gunan, G.R. No. 191193, 14 November 2012.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; SALE OR POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; NARCOTICS SUBSTANCE CONSTITUTES CORPUS DELICTI. Sale or possession of a dangerous drug can never
be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Nacua, et al, accused; Reynaldo Nacua, accused-appellant, G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; SALE OR POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RULES ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIRED. Given the unique characteristic of
dangerous and illegal drugs which are indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution, either by accident or otherwise, there must be strict compliance with the prescribed measures to be observed during and after the seizure of dangerous drugs and related paraphernalia, during the custody and transfer thereof for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court. Such measures are described with particularity under section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 and section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165. Moreover, in People v. Coreche, the Supreme
Court emphasized that the marking of the seized drugs must be done immediately after they are seized from the accused and failure to do so suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and raises reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the corpus delicti. People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Nacua, et al, accused; Reynaldo Nacua, accused-appellant, G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013.
DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; SALE OR POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RULES ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIRED. In this case, there was a total
disregard of the requirements of law and jurisprudence. The prosecution even admits that the police officers acquired the sachet of shabu presented in court against accused-appellant in a mere “test-buy” operation by SPO1 Rosales, PO3 Luague, and PO1 Aniñon. The police officers, after supposedly buying the sachet of shabu from the Nacua couple for Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00), left the residence of the Nacua couple, without recovering the marked money or effecting the couple’s arrest. The police officers brought the sachet of suspected shabu all the way back to their police station, and only there marked the said item, without the presence of the accused and/or other disinterested witnesses. While the Supreme Court (SC) allows for relaxation of the rules in some cases, there must be compelling and justifiable grounds for the same and it must be shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly preserved. However, such conditions are not present in the instant case. Firstly, the prosecution did not offer any explanation as to why the police officers failed to strictly comply with the established procedure for the custody of the suspected shabu. The SC thus surmised that the operation on September 2, 2005 was only meant to be a “test-buy,” so that the police officers could secure a search warrant for the house of the Nacua couple. There was no original
intention to arrest and charge the Nacua couple for the shabu purchase that day. Surprisingly and inexplicably, however, the prosecution chose to indict the Nacua couple for the “test-buy” conducted on September 2, 2005, rather than for the result of the search conducted on September 21, 2005 at the house of the Nacua couple which purportedly yielded more shabu and related paraphernalia and led to the arrest of the couple. Secondly, the prosecution failed to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the sachet of suspected shabu allegedly bought from the Nacua couple during the “test-buy” operation has been properly preserved from the time said item was transmitted to the crime laboratory up to its presentation in court. No evidence was offered to show as to how the said specimen was kept and by whom after its forensic examination throughout its presentation in court. With reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the corpus delicti, the acquittal of accused-appellant of the crime charged is in order. People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Nacua, et al, accused; Reynaldo Nacua, accused-appellant, G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013.
DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE. The accused
argues that the NBI operatives failed to observe the chain of custody rule in dangerous drugs cases. The Supreme Court did not agree. The alleged failure of the apprehending team to inventory and photograph the confiscated items immediately after the operation is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Here, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been preserved as there is evidence to account for the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized shabu, starting from its confiscation to its presentation as evidence in the
Regional Trial Court. People of the Philippines v. Hong Yen E and Tsien Tsien Chua, G.R. No. 181826, 9 January 2013.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ELEMENTS. The
elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are as follows: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug. The evidence on record clearly established that appellant Chua was in possession of the plastic bags containing prohibited drugs without the requisite authority. Applying section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, a disputable presumption arises that she is the owner of the bag and its contents. It may be rebutted by contrary proof that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question, and did not intend to do so. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi. Here, Chua failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption. People of the Philippines v. Hong Yen E and Tsien Tsien Chua, G.R. No. 181826, 9 January 2013.
ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; BUY-BUST OPERATIONS OR DECOY SOLICITATIONS ARE VALID. A police officer’s act of
soliciting drugs from appellant during the buy-bust operation, or what is known as the “decoy solicitation,” is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the buy-bust operation. In People v. Legaspi, the Supreme Court pronounced that in a prosecution for sale of illicit drugs,any of the following will not exculpate the accused: (1) that
facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way; or (2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act; or (3) that the police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisted in its commission. Hence, even assuming that the PAOCTF operatives repeatedly asked her to sell them shabu,
