once even though the circumstances behind the issuance of the

BP 22 checks were referred to a couple of times. Moreover, the

phrase "in Manila" only appeared in the ninth paragraph of
RAFFY BRODETH AND ROLAN B. ONAL, Villegas' affidavit where the elements of the offense were
PETITIONERS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES already being summarized. Looking at the affidavit itself
AND ABRAHAM G. VILLEGAS, RESPONDENTS. already casts some doubt as to where the subject checks were
G.R. No. 197849, November 29, 2017 really issued.

Adriano More importantly, we agree with petitioners that

FACTS: Villegas could not have testified or alleged in his affidavit that
the checks were issued in Manila because he was not privy to
On 16 August 2001, petitioners were charged before
the contractual negotiations with L&S Resources nor was he
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 30 Manila (MeTC), with
present when petitioners issued the checks. In fact, his position
violation of B.P. Blg. 22. on 23 November 2000 a complaint
in the company did not give him any opportunity to deal
was filed by Villegas, the Operations Manager of Vill
directly with his clients as brought out in his cross-
Integrated. He alleged that in the course of his company's
examination:
operations, he transacted with L&S Resources, Inc. by
providing the latter equipment and tugboats for its own Furthermore, petitioners claimed in defense that the
operations. After the execution of the service contracts, L&S checks were issued as a guarantee for the payments. As
Resources started using the equipment and tugboats, and even admitted by Vill Integrated's liason officer, their company
made partial payments to Vill Integrated. However, L&S collects payments from its clients in their respective offices.
Resources had not fully paid all of Vill Integrated's billings Considering that L&S Resources' principal place of business is
and its officers only made promises to settle them but never in Makati City, it would be out of the ordinary course
did. ofbusiness operations for petitioners to go all the way to
Manila just to issue the checks.
According to Villegas, among the payments made by
L&S Resources were three (3) checks drawn against Violations of B.P. Blg. 22 are categorized as
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank). Two (2) transitory or continuing crimes. A suit on the check can be
out of these three (3) checks, particularly: (a) Metrobank filed in ariy of the places where any of the elements of the
Check No. 2700111415 dated 31 August 1999, and (b) offense occurred, that is, where the check is drawn, issued,
Metrobank Check No. 2700111416 dated 5 September 1999, delivered or dishonored.
are the subject checks in the instant case. When the subject
checks were deposited to Vill Integrated's account, they were Bernabe
dishonored as they were "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds IVY LIM vs.
(DAIF)." The complainant made demands for payment but PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and BLUE PACIFIC
they were unheaded hence the filing of the criminal complaint HOLDINGS, INC.
G.R. No. 224979
On 2 July 2008, the MeTC found petitioners guilty December 13, 2017
beyond reasonable doubt for the offense charged. The MeTC
held that the dishonor of the subject checks was sufficiently Facts:
shown by the letters "DAIF" written at the back of the checks,
which is prima facie evidence that the drawee bank had Private respondent Blue Pacific Holdings, Inc. granted
dishonored the checks. Moreover, the MeTC ruled that Rochelle Benito a loan amounting to ₱1,149,500.00 as
petitioners had known the checks were dishonored because evidenced by a Promissory Note acknowledged before a
they admitted they had the demand letters. notary public. Petitioner Lim signed as a co-maker of her
sister Benito. To secure payment of the loan, Benito and Lim
Issue: issued eleven (11) Equitable PCI Bank checks with a face
value of ₱67,617.65 each, or a total amount of ₱743,794.15.
Whether or not the court of appeals erroneously Later on, 10 of these 11 checks were dishonored when
affirmed reliance on hearsay evidence to establish territorial presented for payment for having been drawn against a closed
jurisdiction of the metropolitan trial court of manila; account. BPHI sent Lim various demand letters, but to no
avail. On June 28, 2005, BPHI sent a final demand letter,
Ruling: which Lim supposedly received as shown by the registry
No, A careful review of the rulings of the lower return card bearing her signature.
courts would show that the only piece of evidence they
considered connecting the alleged violation of B.P. Blg. 22 For failing to pay the amounts corresponding the dishonored
within the territorial jurisdiction of the MeTC is the affidavit- checks, Lim was charged with 11 counts of violation of B.P.
complaint of Villegas. In this affidavit, the allegation that the Blg. 22. During the preliminary conference, the parties
subject checks were issued in Manila was mentioned only admitted the following matters: (1) the jurisdiction of the trial
court; (2) the identity of Lim as the accused, (3) the existence amount of ₱67,617.65 was not presented for payment, and
of the complaint affidavit, (4) the existence of the promissory hence to criminal liability attached thereto.
note and Lim's signature thereon, and (5) the existence and
due execution of the 11 checks with BPHI as payee.During As to the third element, Exhibit "Q", the demand letter dated
trial, the prosecution presented its witness, BPHI Finance May 18, 2005 addressed to Ivy Benito Lim and signed by
Officer Enriquez, and documentary evidence consisting of the Juanito Enriquez was undisputedly received by the accused
complaint-affidavit, the promissory note and the 11 checks, Ivy Lim as shown in Exhibit "Q-6". The distinctive strokes in
and the demand letters, among others. For the defense, Lim writing the name "Ivy" and the flourish of the stroke in writing
claimed that the subject checks were unauthenticated because "im" in the latter part thereof, compared with the signatures
she was out of the country on July 29, 2003, as shown by the appearing on all the checks shown that these signatures were
certification of her travel record issued by the BID. She made by one and [the] same person. No evidence was
refuted the testimony of Enriquez that he personally saw her presented by the defense to refute the sending, receipt and
signed the checks before him. existence of the signature of accused Ivy Lim in Exhibits "Q"
and Q-6".
The MeTC rendered a decision finding Lim guilty beyond
reasonable doubt vor violation of B.P Blg. 22. On appeal, the Bondoc
RTC found no reversible error and affirmed the MeTC
Decision. The CA then affirmed the decision of the RTC. Evangeline Danao v. Court of Appeals & People
G.R. No. 122353 June 6, 2001
Issue:
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG.22 – BOUNCING CHECKS
Whether or not Lim is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of LAW
violating B.P. Blg. 22
FACTS:
Ruling: Complainant, Luzviminda Macasieb, entered into a loan
agreement with Appellant Danao. As security for the loan,
The elements of violation ofB.P. Blg. 22 are as follows: Apellant issued two postdated checks in the total amount of
P29,750. On the maturity dates of the two checks, Macasieb
1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to deposited the same to PCIB Branch Quezon City. However,
apply to account or for value; the checks were dishonored for the reasoned that the account
of appellant had already been closed. Appellant was informed
of the dishonor of the checks and was asked to redeem the
2. The check is subsequently dishonored by the
same but to no avail. A letter was sent by Atty. Jose Padolina,
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit; or it
counsel for private complainant, demanding that appellant
would have been dishonored for the same reason had
settle her obligation. However, the latter failed to heed the
not the drawer, without any valid reasons, ordered the
demand letter. Appellant was then charged with violation of
bank to stop payment; and
B.P. Blg. 22.

3. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that The Trial Court convicted the appellant. The Court of
he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
with, drawee bank for payment of the check in full
upon its presentment.
ISSUE: WON all the elements of Bouncing Check Law
All the foregoing elements were established beyond violation is present in this case
reasonable doubt by the prosecution, as thoroughly discussed
by the MeTC. RULING: No.
The Information in each of the two criminal cases charges that
As to the first element, the Court finds that the checks were petitioner Evangeline issued the subject check, "knowing that
issued for value. Accused is the co-maker of the promissory
at the time of issue thereof," she "did not have sufficient funds
note (Exhibit "D") wherein she voluntarily bound herself to be
in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment in full of the
jointly and severally liable with Rochelle Benito, her sister, to
Blue Pacific Inc. for the amount of ₱605,000.00 plus interests. face amount of the check upon its presentment," and that
Accused is also a signatory to the eleven checks issued, along "despite receipt of notice of dishonor, the said accused failed
with her sister, in favor of Blue Pacific. These checks to pay the payee the face amount of the check or to make
constitute the means for payment of the promissory note arrangement for full payment thereof within five (5) banking
signed by the accused and her sister. days after receiving notice."

The elements of the offense under Section 1 of B.P. 22 are:

As to the second element, except for Exhibit "G", the evidence
shows that the ten (10) checks were presented for payment and 1. The accused makes, draws or issues any
subsequently dishonored for the reason "Account Closed". The check to apply to account or for value;
check dated May 29, 2004 with check number 0105461 in the
 2. The accused knows at the time of the for ¬40,000.00 each, and made them sign an investment
issuance that he or she does not have sufficient contract with Multitel International Holding Corporation.
funds in, or credit with, the drawee bank for the Upon maturity of the checks, Sps. Aldaba attempted to encash
payment of the check in full upon its the same but were dishonored for being drawn against
presentment; and insufficient funds.
3. The check is subsequently dishonored by the In her defense, Rimando denied friendship with the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or spouses and that she enticed them to invest in her own
credit, or it would have been dishonored for the
business, as she had none. She contends that her acquittal and
same reason had not the drawer, without any
exoneration from the civil liability in the BP 22 cases should
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
have barred spouses Aldaba from claiming civil liability from
The Court further ruled in King v. People, "in order to create her in the estafa case.
the prima facie presumption that the issuer knew of the
insufficiency of funds, it must be shown that he or she ISSUE:
received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days
Whethere or not the civil liability of Rimando in the
thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the check or make
estafa case extinguished by virtue of her acquittal and
arrangement for its payment."
exoneration from civil liability in the BP 22 cases.
If such notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is
not sent to the maker or drawer of the bum check, or if there is HELD:
no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer
NO, Rimando’s exoneration of the civil liability in
then the presumption or prima facie evidence as provided
the BP 22 case does not extinguish her criminal liability in the
under Section 2 cannot arise, since there would simply be no
way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period. estafa case. The acquittal of the accused does not
automatically preclude a judgment against him on the civil
In the present case, no proof of receipt by petitioner of any aspect of the case. The extinction of the penal action does not
notice of non-payment of the checks was ever presented carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the
during the trial. There is no way of determining when the 5- acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance
day period prescribed in Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 would start of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability
and end. Thus, the presumption or prima facie evidence of of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the
knowledge by the petitioner of the insufficiency of funds or
accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of
credit at the times she issued the checks did not arise.
which the accused is acquitted. However, the civil action
It is clear that the essential element of knowledge of based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a
insufficiency of funds or credit on the part of petitioner is finding on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act
absent in this case not having been proved by the prosecution. or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not
On this ground alone, petitioner should be acquitted. exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission
imputed to him.
Clemente
In this case, Rimando’s civil liability did not arise
G.R. No. 203583; October 13, 2014
from any purported act constituting the crime of estafa as the
Leonora B. Rimando v. Spouses Winston and Elenita RTC clearly found that Rimando never employed any deceit
Adaba and People of the Philippines on Sps. Aldaba to induce them to invest money in Multitel.
Rather, her civil liability was correctly traced from being an
FACTS: accommodation party to one of the checks she issued to Sps.
The petitioner Rimando is charged with the crime of Aldaba on behalf of Multitel. In lending her name to Multitel,
estafa through the use of false manifestations and fraudulent she, in effect, acted as a surety to the latter, and as such, she
representations. Petitioner was also charged with violation of may be held directly liable for the value of the issued check.
BP 22, which she was acquitted in the ground of reasonable Rimando’s acquittal and subsequent exoneration in
doubt. The RTC likewise acquitted Rimando of the crime of the BP 22 cases had no effect in the estafa case, even if both
estafa but found her civilly liable to Spouses Aldaba. cases were founded on the same factual circumstances.
Facts reveal that Rimando enticed Sps. Aldaba to Essentially, while a BP 22 case and an estafa case may be
invest in her business under the assurance that it is stable and rooted from an identical set of facts, they nevertheless present
that their money would earn 8% monthly interest. Convinced different causes of action, which, under the law, are
by Rimando’s proposal and taking into consideration their considered “separate, distinct, and independent” from each
long friendship, Sps. Aldaba gave Rimando a check in the other. Therefore, both cases can proceed to their final
amount of ¬500,000.00 as an investment in her business. adjudication – both as to their criminal and civil aspects –
subject to the prohibition on double recovery. Perforce, a
In turn, Rimando gave Sps. Aldaba three (3) ruling in a BP 22 case concerning the criminal and civil
postdated checks, one for ¬500,000.00 and the other two (2) liabilities of the accused cannot be given any bearing
whatsoever in the criminal and civil aspects of a related estafa 1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to apply to
case, as in this instance. account or for value;

Hence, Rimando is still civilly liable in the estafa case despite 2. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that he or she
her exoneration of her civil liability in the BP 22 case. does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with, the drawee
De Guzman Michy bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment;
and
RUIZ V, PEOPLE
G.R. No. 160893 3. The check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank
November 18, 2005 for insufficiency of funds or credit or it would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
Facts: any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
Ruiz contracted several loans from Norberta
Mendoza amounting to ₱184,000.00. Ruiz then issued a check The gravamen of the offense is the act of making and
for Mendoza but it was dishonored by the bank, as the account issuing a worthless check or any check that is dishonored upon
against which it was drawn was already closed. its presentment for payment and putting them in circulation.
The law includes all checks drawn against banks. The law was
The bank notified Mendoza of the dishonored check. designed to prohibit and altogether eliminate the deleterious
Mendoza , through counsel informed Riz that the check had and pernicious practice of issuing checks with insufficient or
been dishonored "for the reason that her account with the no credit or funds therefor.
drawee bank was already closed." Mendoza also demanded the
payment of the amount of the check plus interest thereon. Ruiz Such practice is deemed a public nuisance, a crime
received the letter and promised Mendoza that she would pay against public order to be abated. The mere act of issuing a
the amount of the check. However, Ruiz reneged and failed to worthless check, either as a deposit, as a guarantee, or even as
pay. an evidence of a pre-existing debt or as a mode of payment is
covered by B.P. . It is a crime classified as malum prohibitum.
Mendoza was charged with violation of B.P 22. The law is broad enough to include, within its coverage,
the making and issuing of a check by one who has no
Ruiz admitted that she drew the check and delivered account with a bank, or where such account was already
the same to Mendoza. However, she declared that she did so closed when the check was presented for payment.
with the conformity of her sister, Gina Parro, who was the
owner of UCPB Account No. 320-000534-5, and that this was
done in the presence of Mendoza. Ruiz further declared that Dela Cruz Ramonito
Mendoza had asked her to draw and issue the check for the G.R. No. 110782 September 25, 1998
purpose of showing the same to an insurance agent with whom IRMA IDOS V. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF
she (Mendoza) had applied for a ₱1,000,000.00 life insurance. THE PHILIPPINES
Ruiz further testified that sheagreed to draw and issue the QUISUMBING, J.:
check to Mendoza merely for accommodation purposes. She
claimed that she informed Mendoza that the check was not FACTS
funded, and the latter assured her that the check would not be Petitioner, Irma L. Idos, is a businesswoman engaged in
encashed nor deposited. leather tanning was accused by the complainant, Eddie
Alarilla her erstwhile supplier and business partner for
She contented as well that, criminal liability for violation of B.P. 22. The complainant Eddie Alarilla supplied
violation of B.P. 22 only arises if the maker of the check is a chemicals and rawhide to the accused-appellant Irma L. Idos
for use in the latter’s business of manufacturing leather. He
depositor of the draweee bank or has a checking account
joined the accused-appellant’s business and formed with her
therein. She posits that one who issues a check against a
the short-lived partnership under the style “Tagumpay
checking account owned by somebody else cannot order the Manufacturing which was dissolved by agreement of the
drawee bank to pay the amount of the check to the payee. parties.

ISSUE: WON Ruiz is guilty of B.P 22 Upon liquidation of the business, the partnership had as of
May 1986 receivables and stocks worth P1,800,000.00. The
Ruling: Yes, Ruiz is guilty of B.P 22 complainant’s share of the assets was P900,000.00 and to pay
such share for accused-appellant issued four (4) postdated
To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the prosecution checks where one of the checks bounced. The complainant
is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt the following demanded payment from the accused-appellant but the latter
elements: failed to pay. In a letter reply, the accused-appellant denied
liability. She claimed that the check had been given upon
demand of complainant in May 1986 only as “assurance” of
his share in the assets of the partnership and that it was not and collect the receivables from debtors. In short,  they were
supposed to be deposited until the stocks had been sold. still in the process of "winding up" the affairs of the
Complainant then filed an action before the court for violating partnership, when the check in question was issued.
BP 22 against petitioner. Accused-appellant insisted that the
complainant had known that the checks were to be funded OSG maintains that the law makes the mere act of issuing a
from the proceeds of the sale of the stocks and the collection bad or worthless check a special offense punishable by law.
of receivables. She claimed that the complainant himself asked "Malice or intent in issuing the worthless check is immaterial,
for the checks because he did not want to continue in the the offense being malum
tannery business and had no use for a share of the stocks. prohibitum. But of course this could not be an absolute
proposition without descending to absurdity. For if a check
RTC rendered a decision finding the petitioner guilty and her were issued by a kidnap victim to a kidnapper for ransom, it
motion for reconsideration was denied. The decision was would be absurd to hold the drawer liable under B.P. 22, if the
affirmed by the appellate court, hence, this petition. check is dishonored and unpaid. That would go against public
policy and common sense. In the present case, Complainant
ISSUE did not present any evidence that petitioner signed and issued
four checks actually knowing that funds therefor would be
Wheter or not the CA erred in convicting accused in view of insufficient at the time complainant would present them to the
the accused’s claim of absence of consideration for the check drawee bank. For it was uncertain at the time of issuance of
in question? the checks whether the unsold goods would have been sold, or
whether the receivables would have been collected by the time
COURT RULING the checks would be encashed. As it turned out, three were
fully funded when presented to the bank; the remaining one
was settled only later on.
Yes. The Court reversed the CA decision.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED
The elements of the offense penalized under B.P. 22, are as AND THE PETITIONER ACQUITTED. The Decision of the
follows: "(1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 11960 is
to apply to account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the hereby REVERSED and the Decision of Regional Trial Court
maker, drawer or issuer that at the time of issue he does not in Criminal Case No. 1395-M-88 is hereby SET ASIDE.
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3)
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for Galita
insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same Chua v. People (G.R. No. 196853, July 13, 2015)
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the bank to stop payment. 
FACTS:
In the present case, with regard to the first issue, evidence on
Chua and private complainant Philip See were long-time
record would show that the subject check was to be funded
friends and neighbors. On different dates from 1992 until
from receivables to be collected and goods to be sold by the
1993, Chua issued several postdated PSBank checks of
partnership, and only when such collection and sale were
varying amounts to See pursuant to their rediscounting
realized.  Thus, there is sufficient basis for the assertion that
arrangement at a 3% rate. However, See claimed that when he
the petitioner issued the subject check to evidence only
deposited the checks, they were dishonored either due to
complainant's share or interest in the partnership, or at best, to
insufficient funds or closed account. Despite demands, Chua
show her commitment that when receivables are collected and
failed to make good the checks. Hence, See filed in December
goods are sold, she would give to private complainant the net
23 1993 a Complaint for violations of BP 22 before the OPP of
amount due him representing his interest in the partnership. It
QC. He attached thereto a demand letter dated December 10,
did not involve a debt of or any account due and payable by
1993.
the petitioner.
The prosecutor found probable cause and recommended the
Two facts stand out. Firstly, three of four checks were filing of charges against Chua before the MeTC of QC.
properly encashed by complainant; only one was not. But
eventually even this one was redeemed by petitioner.
In his defense, he maintained that the demand letter attached
Secondly, even private complainant admitted that there was no
by See in the complaint, among others, does not contain
consideration whatsoever for the issuance of the check, whose
Chua's signature that would serve as proof of his actual receipt
funding was dependent on future sales of goods and receipts of
thereof, that the purported demand letter was still blank when
payment of account receivables.
presented to him for signature, and that he signed the same for
another purpose. The defense then surmised that the
Now, it could not be denied that though the parties — prosecution fabricated the demand letter to remedy the lack of
petitioner and complainant — had agreed to dissolve the a proper notice of dishonor upon Chua. They also argued that
partnership, such agreement did not automatically put an end while the demand letter contains Chua's signature, the same
to the partnership, since they still had to sell the goods on hand should not be given any probative value since it does not
contain the date when he allegedly received the same. Hence, Chua's actual receipt thereof. It must be stressed that the
there is simply no way of reckoning the crucial five-day period prosecution must also prove actual receipt of the notice of
that the law affords an issuer to make good the check from the dishonor because the fact of service provided for in the law is
date of his notice of its dishonor. reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the
accused. And since the quantum of proof required is proof
Nonetheless, MeTC convicted Chua of violations of BP 22. beyond reasonable doubt, for B.P. Blg. 22 cases, there should
The RTC and the CA affirmed. be clear proof of notice" which the Court finds wanting in this
case.
ISSUE:
However, an acquittal based on lack of proof beyond
Whether or not Chua is correctly held liable for violation of reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil
BP 22; damages. For this reason, Chua must be directed to restitute
See the total amount of the face value of all the checks with
HELD: legal interest reckoned from the time the said checks became
due and demandable until fully paid.
No. The prosecution failed to prove all the elements of the
offenses charged.
Grande
In order to successfully hold an accused liable for violation of
BP 22, the following essential elements must be present: "(1) Francisco T. Sycip, Jr. v. Court of Appeals
the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for G.R. No. 125059 | March 17, 2000
account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer,
or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient Facts:
funds in br credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the
check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the subsequent Sycip agreed to buy, on installment from Francel Realty
dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of Corporation (FRC), a townhouse. Upon execution of the
funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the contract to sell, Sycip, as required, issued to FRC 48 posdated
drawer, witjhout any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop checks to cover the monthly installments.
payment." 
After moving in his unit, Sycip complained to FRC regarding
In the instant case, what is in dispute is the existence of the defects in the unit which FRC ignored. Thus, Sycip served on
second element. The Court has discussed the importance of FRC two notarial notices to the effect that he was suspending
proving the date of actual receipt of the notice of his installment payments pending compliance with the project
dishonor, that is, it is not enough to establish that a check plans approved by HLRUB. Sycip and other buyers filed a
issued was subsequently dishonored. It must be shown further complaint with HLURB, where it ordered FRC to finish the
that the person who issued the check knew 'at the time of issue incomplete feature of its townhouse project.
that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its Notwithstanding the notarial notices, FRC continued to
presentment.' And because this element involves a state of present for encashement Sycip’s postdated checks in its
mind which is difficult to establish, Section 2 of BP 22 creates possession. Sycip sent “stop payment orders” to the bank.
a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds, which, When FRC continued to present the other postdated checks to
however, arises only after it is proved that the issuer had the bank as the due date fell, the bank advised Sycip to close
received a written notice of dishonor and that within five days
his checking account to avoid paying bank charges every time
from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check
he made a "stop payment" order on the forthcoming checks.
or to make arrangements for its payment.
Due to the closure of petitioner's checking account, the drawee
Thus, if such notice of non-payment by the drawee bank is not bank dishonored six postdated checks. FRC filed a complaint
sent to the maker or drawer of the bum check, or if there is no against petitioner for violations of B.P. Blg. 22 involving said
proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, dishonored checks.
then the presumption or prima facie evidence as provided
in Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 cannot arise, since there would Issue: Whether or not Sycip is guilty of violating BP 22;
simply be no way of reckoning the crucial 5-day period."  Ruling:
In the present case, there is no way to ascertain when the five- No, Sycip is not guilty of violating BP 22.
day period under Section 22 of BP 22 would start and end
since there is no showing when Chua actually received the Under the provisions of the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. No.
demand letter. The MeTC cannot simply presume that the date 22), an offense is committed when the following elements are
of the demand letter was likewise the date of Chua's receipt present:
thereof. Given also Chua's reasons of denial, it behooved upon
the prosecution to present proof of his actual receipt of the (1) the making, drawing and issuance of any check to
demand letter. However, all that the prosecution did was to apply for account or for value;
present it without adducing any evidence as to the date of
 (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at PAZ M. DINGLE, petitioner,
the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in vs.
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT AND
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
such check in full upon its presentment; and
(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee
Facts: Paz M. Dingle, herein petitioner, and her husband
bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor
Nestor Dingle, are owners of a family business known as
for the same reason had not the drawer, without any "PMD Enterprises" which was managed by the latter.
valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
Nestor Dingle entered into a transaction with one Ernesto Ang
The second element involves knowledge on the part of the whereby PMD Enterprises would sell 400 of washed silica
issuer at the time of the check's issuance that he did not have sand to Ang and Ang gave as advanced payment a certain
enough funds or credit in the bank for payment thereof upon amount to Nestor Dingle.
its presentment. B.P. No. 22 creates a presumption juris
tantum that the second element prima facie exists when the Nestor Dingle, however, failed to deliver the 400 tons of
first and third elements of the offense are present. But such washed silica sand, so he issued to Ang two (2) postdated
evidence may be rebutted. If not rebutted or contradicted, it checks drawn by him and his wife as authorized signatories of
will suffice to sustain a judgment in favor of the issue, which PMD Enterprises in the total amount of P51,885.93
it supports. Such knowledge of the insufficiency of petitioner's representing the value of the undelivered washed silica sand.
funds "is legally presumed from the dishonor of his checks for The checks were dishonored for being "drawn against
insufficiency of funds." But such presumption cannot hold if insufficient funds." When informed of the dishonor Nestor
there is evidence to the contrary. Dingle replaced the checks with one (1) Equitable Banking
Corporation Check in the amount of P51,885.93 which was
The checks in this case were issued at the time of the signing also signed by both spouses. This was also dishonored. Two
of the Contract to Sell. But there’s no showing that the time (2) letters were sent to and received by Nestor Dingle for the
said checks were issued, petitioner had knowledge that his payment of the amount covered by the dishonored check. No
deposit or credit in the bank would be insufficient to cover payment was made. Hence, the spouses were charged with the
them when presented for encashment. As the evidence for the violation of BP Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Anti-
defense showed, the closure of petitioner's Account with Bouncing Check Law.
Citibank was not for insufficiency of funds. It was made upon
the advice of the drawee bank, to avoid payment of hefty bank Issue: Whether or not Petitioner incur any criminal liability
under BP 22.
charges each time petitioner issued a "stop payment" order to
prevent encashment of postdated checks in private
respondent's possession. Said evidence contradicts the prima Ruling: No. Petitioner did not incur any criminal liability
under BP 22.
facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds.
This does not suffice to prove the second element of the
offense under B.P. Blg. 22, which explicitly requires The Solicitor General in his Memorandum recommended that
petitioner be acquitted of the instant charge because from the
"evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds" by the accused
testimony of the sole prosecution witness Ernesto Ang, it was
at the time the check or checks are presented for encashment. established that he dealt exclusively with Nestor Ang.
To rely on the presumption created by B.P. No. 22 as the Nowhere in his testimony is the name of Paz Dingle ever
prosecution did in this case, would be to misconstrue the mentioned in connection with the transaction and with the
issuance of the check. In fact, Ang categorically stated that it
import of requirements for conviction under the law. It must
was Nestor Dingle who received his two (2) letters of demand.
be stressed that every element of the offense must be proved This lends credence to the testimony of Paz Dingle that she
beyond reasonable doubt, never presumed. Furthermore, penal signed the questioned checks in blank together with her
statutes are strictly construed against the State and liberally in husband without any knowledge of its issuance, much less of
favor of the accused. Under the Bouncing Checks Law, the the transaction and the fact of dishonor.
punishable act must come clearly within both the spirit and
letter of the statute. In the case of Florentino Lozano vs. Hon. Martinez,
promulgated December 18, 1986, it was held that an
In this case, although the first element of the offense exists,
essential element of the offense is  knowledge on the part of
the other elements have not been established beyond the maker or drawer of the check of the insufficiency of his
reasonable doubt. funds.
Guilalas
Oquendo
G.R. No. 75243 March 16, 1987 ALBURO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 196289 (2016)
Per J. Peralta, Third Division
 Dela Cruz v. People
FACTS G.R. No. 163494; 3 August 2016
J. Reyes
Elizabeth Alburo was charged with violation of Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 22 after four (4) checks which she FACTS: Tan entered into several business transactions with
issued as payment for a house and lot were dishonored for the petitioner sometime in 1984 to 1985, whereby the former
being drawn against insufficient funds. In her defense, supplied and delivered to the petitioner rolls of textile
Elizabeth argues that she never received any notice of materials and that for every delivery made, the petitioner
dishonor. issued post-dated checks made payable to "Cash". When
presented for payment, however, some of the checks issued by
ISSUE the petitioner to Tan were dishonored by the drawee-bank for
being "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds" or "Account
Whether Elizabeth has been actually notified of the Closed". The replacement checks later issued by the petitioner
dishonor of her checks. were still dishonored upon presentment for payment. The
fourth batch of 23 replacement checks issued by the petitioner
RULING to Tan became the subject of his complaint. Said checks were
still dishonored and the amounts thereof remained unsatisfied.
No. The first (the making, drawing, and issuance of Twenty three informations for violation of B.P. Blg 22 were
any check to apply for account or for value) and third (the filed in court against the petitioner. Upon arraignment,
dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of petitioner pleaded “not guilty”. The prosecution was able to
funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not present its evidence during the trial but the defense failed to
the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the drawee bank present its evidence after it had sought several hearing
to stop payment) elements of the crime charged are present in postponements and resettings. The RTC issued an Order that
this case. Elizabeth issued checks as payment and when deemed the petitioner to have waived her right to present
presented for payment, the same were dishonored for being evidence. The RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
drawn against insufficient funds. doubt. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.

ISSUE: Is petitioner guilty under B.P. Blg 22?

To establish the second element (the knowledge of
the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there RULING: No. To be liable for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the
were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for following essential elements must be present: (1) the making,
the payment of such check in full upon its presentment), it drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for
must be shown that the accused knew at the time of the value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at
issuance of the check that he or she did not have sufficient the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit
funds or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon
check in full upon its presentment. B.P. Blg. 22 creates a its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check
prima facie presumption of such knowledge. by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
For this presumption to arise: (a) the check must be valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
presented within 90 days from the date thereof; (b) the drawer
Although a notice of dishonor is not an indispensable
or maker must receive a notice that the check has not been
requirement in a prosecution for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 as it
paid by the drawee; and (c) the drawer or maker failed to pay
is not an element of the offense, evidence that a notice of
the holder of the check the amount due thereon, or make
dishonor has been sent to and received by the accused is
arrangements for payment in full within five banking days
actually sought as a means to prove the second element.
after receiving such notice. This presumption cannot arise, if
Jurisprudence is replete with cases that underscore the value of
such notice is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is no
a notice of dishonor in B.P. Blg. 22 cases, and how the
proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer, since
absence of sufficient proof of receipt thereof can be fatal in the
there would be no way of reckoning the 5-day period.
prosecution's case.
In this case, it was not proven that Elizabeth received The presumption that the issuer had knowledge of the
the demand letter sent through registered mail. Although the insufficiency of funds is brought into existence only after it is
letter was received by her housemaid, it was not proven that proved that the issuer had received a notice of dishonor and
the same person is Elizabeth’s duly authorized agent. To that within five days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the
assume that the housemaid had given the letter to Elizabeth is amount of the check or to make arrangement for its payment.
not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption or prima facie evidence as provided in this
section cannot arise, if such notice of non-payment by the
drawee bank is not sent to the maker or drawer, or if there is
Manco no proof as to when such notice was received by the drawer,
since there would simply be no way of reckoning the crucial by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or
5-day period. This requirement cannot be taken lightly dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
because Section 2 provides for an opportunity for the drawer valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
to effect full payment of the amount appearing on the check,
within five banking days from notice of dishonor. The absence
The Court finds that the second element was not sufficiently
of said notice therefore deprives an accused of an opportunity
established. Yao testified that the personal secretary of
to preclude criminal prosecution. In other words, procedural
petitioner received the demand letter, yet, said personal
due process demands that a notice of dishonor be actually secretary was never presented to testify whether she in fact
served on petitioner. handed the demand letter to petitioner who, from the onset,
denies having received such letter. It must be borne in mind
The prosecution failed to sufficiently prove the actual receipt
that it is not enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice
by the petitioner of the demand letter sent by Tan. No witness
of dishonor was sent to the accused. The prosecution must also
testified to authenticate the registry return card and the prove actual receipt of said notice, because the fact of service
signature appearing thereon. The return card provides that the provided for in the law is reckoned from receipt of such notice
letter was received by one Rolando Villanueva, without even of dishonor by the accused.
further proof that the said person was the petitioner's duly
authorized agent for the purpose of receiving the
correspondence. Salvador

Accused acquitted. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Duque

G.R. No. 216467
Ramos February 15, 2017
J Peralta
JOHN DENNIS G. CHUA vs. PEOPLE OF THE (B.P. 22)
PHILIPPINES and CRISTINA YAO
FACTS
G.R. NO. 19524
Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation is a lessee of Shell
November 22, 2017 House building. PSPC subleased the same to the The Fitness
Center. However, TFC encountered problems in its business,
FACTS: prompting it to assign its rights and obligations under the
sublease contract with Fitness Consultants, headed by accused
Sometime in the year 2000, petitioner's mother
Carlos Duque as proprietor and Teresa Duque as corporate
mentioned that her son would be reviving their sugar mill secretary. Subsequently, FCI failed to pay its rentals to PSPC.
business and asked whether Yao could lend them money. Yao FCI then issued a check, with accused as signatories, which
acceded and loaned petitioner ₱1 million on 3 January 2001; would supposedly cover FCI's obligations to PSPC. However,
₱1 million on 7 January 2001; and ₱l.5 million on 16 February the check was dishonored, thus, leading to the filing of a
2001. She also lent petitioner an additional ₱2.5 million in criminal complaint against the accused for their alleged
June 2001. As payment petitioner issued four (4) checks in violation of BP 22. The MeTC found them guilty and besides
these amounts but which were dishonored for having been ordering payment of fine, they are also ordered to pay civil
drawn against a closed account. Upon dishonor of the checks, indemnity in favor of PSPC. On appeal to RTC, they were
Yao personally delivered her demand letter to the office of the acquitted but they were still order to pay civil indemnity.
petitioner which was received by his secretary. Petitioner was
thus charged with four (4) counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22. ISSUE
Whether or not they are liable for civil indemnity even if they
are acquitted
Petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove actual
receipt of the notice. RULING
NO.

ISSUE: Whether or not Chua is guilty of B.P. 22. The general rule is that a corporate officer who issues a
bouncing corporate check can be held civilly liable when he is
convicted. The civil liability of a corporate officer in a BP 22
RULING: case is extinguished with the criminal liability. This is without
regard as to whether his acquittal was based on reasonable
No. To be liable for violation of B.P. Big. 22, the doubt or that there was a pronouncement by the trial court that
following essential elements must be present: (1) the making, the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise
drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for did not exist.
value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at
the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit Moreover, in the case, nothing in the records would show that
with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon accused made themselves personally nor solidarily liable for
its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check the corporate obligations either as accommodation parties or
sureties. On the contrary, there is no dispute that accused 2. The checks subsequently dishonored by the drawee
signed the subject check in their capacity as corporate officers bank for insufficiency of funds or credit; or it would have been
and that the check was drawn in the name of FCI as payment dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
for the obligation of the corporation and not for the personal any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
indebtedness of accused. Neither is there allegation nor proof
that the veil of corporate fiction is being used by accused for 3. The accused knows at the time of the issuance that
fraudulent purposes. Generally, the stockholders and officers he or she does not have sufficient funds in, or credit with,
are not personally liable for the obligations of the corporation drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
except only when the veil of corporate fiction is being used as presentment.
a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality, or to work injustice,
which is not the case here. Hence, accused cannot be held In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish
liable for the value of the checks issued in payment for FCI's the third element. To hold a person liable under BP 22, it is
obligation. not enough to establish that a check issued was subsequently
dishonored. It must be shown further that the person who
Santos issued the check knew "at the time of issue that he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment." Because
BETTY KING vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES this element involves a state of mind which is difficult to
establish, Section 2 of the law creates a prima
G.R. No. 131540 December 2, 1999 facie presumption of such knowledge.

FACTS: The prima facie presumption arises when a check is

issued. Thus, in order to create the prima facie presumption
Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jaime A. that the issuer knew of the insufficiency of funds, it must be
Adoc filed against petitioner eleven separate shown that he or she received a notice of dishonor and, within
Informations, which are identically worded, except for the five banking days thereafter, failed to satisfy the amount of the
check number, the amount and the date. The facts of the case check or make arrangement for its payment.
are as follows. On several occasions, petitioner discounted
with complainant Ellen Fernandez several Equitable Bank In this case, the Court find no evidentiary basis for
checks postdated from July 23 to 29, 1992 in the total amount the holding of the lower courts that petitioner received a notice
of P1,070,000.00 in exchange for cash in the amount of that the checks had been dishonored. True, complainant sent
P1,000,000.00. When the checks were deposited for payment, petitioner a registered mail, as shown in Exhibit "Q" informing
they were dishonored by the drawee bank because they were the latter that the checks had been dishonored. But the records
drawn against an account without sufficient funds. Petitioner show that petitioner did not receive it. In fact, the postmaster's
failed to make good the checks despite demand. During the letter addressed to complainant's counsel certified that the
hearing, the prosecution offered its documentary evidence. "subject registered mail was returned to sender.
Petitioner admitted the genuineness and due execution of the
documents presented. After the prosecution presented its Notwithstanding the clear import of the postmaster's
evidence and rested its case, petitioner filed a Demurrer to certification, the prosecution failed to adduce any other proof
Evidence without leave of court, on the ground that the that petitioner received the post office notice but unjustifiably
prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. refused to claim the registered mail. It is possible that the
The trial court denied the said Demurrer and found petitioner drawee bank sent petitioner a notice of dishonor, but the
guilty. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. prosecution did not present evidence that the bank did send it,
or that petitioner actually received it. It was also possible that
ISSUE: she was trying to flee from complainant by staying in different
address. Speculations and possibilities, however, cannot take
Whether or not petitioner is guilty of violation of BP the place of proof. Conviction must rest on proof beyond
22 reasonable doubt. Clearly, the evidence on hand demonstrates
the indelible fact that petitioner did not receive notice that the
checks had been dishonored. Necessarily, the presumption that
she knew of the insufficiency of funds cannot arise.
RULING:
The Court stressed that BP 22, like all penal statutes,
is construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of
No, the elements of the crime charged have not all
the accused. Likewise, the prosecution has the burden to prove
been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court has held that
beyond reasonable doubt each element of the crime.
the elements of the crime are as follows:
Henceforth, petitioner is acquitted for failure of the
prosecution to prove all the elements of the crimes charged.
1. The accused makes, draws or issues any check to
apply to account or for value.
Yacob
 PETER NIERRAS VS. HON. AUXENCIO C. PARAS, J.
DACUYCUY
GR # 59568-76, January 11, 1990
FACTS: Doctrine:
Petitioner purchased oil products from it. Simultaneous to the Foreign checks, provided they are either drawn and issued in
delivery of the products, he issued nine (9) checks in payment the Philippines though payable outside thereof, are within the
thereof. Upon presentation to the Philippine National Bank of coverage of the Bouncing Checks Law.
Naval, Leyte, said checks were dishonored for the reason that
his account is already closed. Thereafter, Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation repeatedly demanded of petitioner
Facts:
either to deposit funds for his checks or pay for the oil
products he had purchased but he failed and refused to do Petitioner Cecilio S. de Villa was charged before the RTC of
either. Makati with violation of BP 22. Petitioner moved to dismiss
the Information on the following grounds: (a) the court has no
Petitioner argued that he would be placed in double jeopardy
jurisdiction over the offense charged; and (b) no offense was
as all the elements of estafa under Article 315 (2-d) of the
committed since the check involved was payable in dollars.
Revised Penal Code are also present in that crime punishable
The trial court, in denying the Motion to Dismiss, ruled that
under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 namely (1) "the postdating or
foreign checks, provided they are either drawn and issued in
issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at
the Philippines though payable outside thereof, or made
the time the check was issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of
payable and dishonored in the Philippines though drawn and
funds to cover the check and (3) damage to the payee thereof."
issued outside thereof, are within the coverage of BP 22.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable

Petitioner then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but
doubt under BP 22.
the CA dismissed the petition. In this appeal, petitioner argues
HELD: that the check in question was drawn against the dollar
account of petitioner with a foreign bank, and is therefore, not
Yes. The mere issuance of a check that is dishonored gives covered by the Bouncing Checks Law.
rise to the presumption of knowledge on the part of the drawer
that he issued the same without sufficient funds and hence
punishable which is not so under the Penal Code. Issue:

While the filing of the two sets of Information under the Whether or not BP 22 covers foreign checks drawn and issued
provisions of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 and under the in the Philippines though payable outside thereof or made
provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, on estafa, payable and dishonored in the Philippines though drawn and
may refer to identical acts committed by petitioner, the issued outside thereof
prosecution thereof cannot be limited to one offense, because a
Ruling:
single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses
and where there is variance or differences between the YES. BP 22 covers foreign checks drawn and issued in the
elements of an offense in one law and another law as in the Philippines though payable outside thereof or made payable
case at bar there will be no double jeopardy because what the and dishonored in the Philippines though drawn and issued
rule on double jeopardy prohibits refers to identity of elements outside thereof. It will be noted that the law does not
in the two (2) offenses. Otherwise stated prosecution for the distinguish the currency involved in the case. As the trial court
same act is not prohibited. What is forbidden is prosecution correctly ruled, Under the Bouncing Checks Law, foreign
for the same offense. Hence, the mere filing of the two (2) sets checks, provided they are either drawn and issued in the
of information does not itself give rise to double jeopardy. Philippines though payable outside thereof are within the
coverage of said law. It is a cardinal principle in statutory
Yco
construction that where the law does not distinguish courts
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. should not distinguish. Parenthetically, the rule is that where
22) the law does not make any exception, courts may not except
something unless compelling reasons exist to justify it.
CECILIO S. DE VILLA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, More importantly, it is well established that courts may avail
HONORABLE JOB B. MADAYAG, and ROBERTO Z. themselves of the actual proceedings of the legislative body to
LORAYES assist in determining the construction of a statute of doubtful
meaning. Thus, where there is doubt as to what a provision of
G.R. No. 87416 April 8, 1991 a statute means, the meaning put to the provision during the
legislative deliberation or discussion on the bill may be were numerous shanties inside the compound requiring the
adopted. raiding team to divide the compound into different target
areas. Assigned to implement the search warrant in Target No.
A perusal of the records of the Batasan unmistakably show 8 When the team entered the target area, persons found inside
that the intention of the lawmakers is to apply the law to scampered away. P/Insp. Pertoza presented the search warrant
whatever currency may be the subject thereof. The discussion to appellant who was then found inside the shanty designated
on the floor of the then Batasang Pambansa fully sustains this as Target No. 8. together with his pregnant wife.
view, as follows:

MR. TUPAY. Mr. Speaker, it has been mentioned by one of Appellant and his wife were inside the shanty during the
the Gentlemen who interpellated that any check may be search. Appellant was sitting in front of a drug paraphernalia
involved, like U.S. dollar checks, etc. We are talking about when the team started to conduct its search. In the course of
checks in our country. There are U.S. dollar checks, checks, in their search, the team found appellant's driver's license inside a
our currency, and many others. wallet found in the sala. The team discovered that the address
of the appellant as stated in his driver's license was F. Soriano
THE SPEAKER. The Sponsor may answer that inquiry. St., Sto. Tomas, Pasig City, which was the same as the address
of Target No. 8. The team likewise noticed that the appellant
MR. MENDOZA. The bill refers to any check, Mr. Speaker,
had a picture of himself inside the house although the same
and this check may be a check in whatever currency. This
was not seized since it was not listed in the search warrant.
would not even be limited to U.S. dollar checks. The check
may be in French francs or Japanese yen or deutschunorhs. If
In the course of the search, the team was able to find and seize
drawn, then this bill will apply.
from the appellant plastic sachets containing crystalline
MR TUPAY. So it include U.S. dollar checks. substances, weighing scale, cellphone, assorted lighters, wallet
containing dollars and a few coins, aluminum foil, and
MR. MENDOZA. Yes, Mr. Speaker. assorted cutters and scissors.
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
For his defense, appellant claimed that in the morning of
February 10, 2006, he was with his pregnant wife on their way
RA 9165 to a hospital for a check-up. They were about to board a
tricycle when men in uniform who looked like soldiers
Adriano stopped them and ordered them to inside the Mapayapa
Compound.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
RAMIL GALICIA Y CHAVEZ, Accused-Appellants.
Issue
G.R. No. 218402, February 14, 2018
whether or not appellant is guilty of maintenance of a
(1)drug den, (2)illegal possession of dangerous drugs and
(3)drug paraphernalia, and (4)use of dangerous drugs.

Appellant was charged with violation of Sections 6, 11, 12, Ruling

and 15, Article II of RA 9165. Arnel Tugade (Tugade), a
(1)
camera man of the television program "Mission X," received
an anonymous call regarding a shabu tiangge inside the No, the prosecution failed to prove that appellant was
Mapayapa compound where there was rampant selling and use guilty of maintenance of a drug den.
of shabu. Tugade verified the tip by bringing a camera in the
compound where he conducted an undercover surveillance and In this case, the evidence relied upon by the RTC to convict
filmed the drug-related activities he witnessed inside the said the appellant of maintenance of a drug den consists of the
compound. following: (1) existence of drug paraphernalia inside the
shanty known as Target No. 8; (2) the appellant's driver's
On January 30, 2006, Tugade went to the office of the Anti- license allegedly found in the living room; and (3) appellant's
Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF) to picture found inside the shanty.
report the rampant selling and use of shabu within the said
compound. After watching the surveillance footage, the PNP After scouring through the records of the case, the
conducted several other surveillance, since the reported selling Court finds that the prosecution failed to clearly establish that
and use of shabu in the compound were confirmed, the police the appellant was guilty of violation of maintenance of a drug
apply for a search warrant den. From the testimonies of the arresting officers, it is clear
that the prosecution failed to establish that the shanty where
Thereafter, they raided the Mapayapa Compound to serve appellant was found was a place where dangerous drugs were
Search Warrant No. 4271-06 against several persons. There sold or used. The prosecution's witnesses merely testified that
when they entered Target No. 8, they found drug Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) otherwise known as The
paraphernalia inside the shanty and sachets of crystalline Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
substance in the person of the appellant. The prosecution
failed to allege and prove an essential element of the offense - A confidential informant told Chief Police Bagonghasa that
that dangerous drugs were being sold or used inside the shanty there was a trading activity of illegal drugs by the appellant in
located at Target No, 8. What was clear was that appellant was Calauan, Laguna. Immediately thereafter, a buy-bust operation
caught in possession of shabu and drug paraphernalia. There was conducted at two o'clock in the morning of October 15,
was nothing in evidence that would indicate that the arresting 2006 where the appellant could be found. (1) plastic sachet of
officers saw that dangerous drugs were being sold and/or used suspected shabu was bought in exchange of a P100.00 bill and
at Target No. 8 in the course of the search of the premises. thus, the transaction was completed. The informant, who also
acted as the poseur-buyer took of his cap as a pre-arranged
Since there was no evidence that dangerous drugs were sold
signal that the transaction was consummated. SPO1 Mortel
and/or used in the shanty located at Target No. 8, appellant
witnessed and heard the transaction between appellant and the
may not be held liable for violation of Section 6, Article II, informant. Immediately, the team approached and arrested the
RA 9165 on maintenance of a drug den. appellant. They informed the appellant of his rights and the
reason for his arrest.
(2)(4)Use of dangerous drugs is absorbed by illegal possession
of drugs. When appellant was subjected to a preventive search, the
police officers recovered from his pocket another small plastic
Section 15, Article II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, sachet containing a suspected shabu which was then marked
provides: by SPO1 Mortel as "A" and the plastic sachet found in
appellant's pocket as "B." He also prepared the letter-request
A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for laboratory examination and personally delivered the same,
for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall together with the two (2) plastic sachets, to the PNP Crime
be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months Laboratory.
rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense,
subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If Appellant denied the charges against him claiming that he was
apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, in San Pablo, Laguna on October 15, 2006. When he boarded
he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from a jeepney on his way home, the jeepney was flagged down in
six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine front of the Municipal Hall of Calauan by four (4) armed men
ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two in civilian clothes. Thereafter, he was arrested for allegedly
hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this selling illegal drugs. The RTC rendered its Decision stating
that appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also
crimes charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed appellant's
found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any
conviction
dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in
which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.
Issue:
Appellant is guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
and drug paraphernalia. Whether or not accused –appellant was guilty beyond
reasonable doubt despite the doubtful existence of a valid buy-
Appellant was charged with illegal possession of dangerous bust operation
drugs after being caught with eight sachets of shabu with a
total amount of 1.15 grams in his possession. Likewise, Ruling:
appellant was charged with illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia for having possession of seven disposable No, he is not. The evidence submitted by the prosecution that
lighters, five improvised aluminum foil tooters, four sheets found that the police operatives, who conducted the buy-bust
aluminum foil, and two weighing scales operation that led to the arrest of appellant, have failed to
comply with the safeguards under RA 9165 and its
Bernabe implementing rules. In this case, the prosecution failed to
prove the legitimacy of the buy bust operation simply because
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RANDY it failed to proffer any documentary proof of the same. The
TALATALA GIDOC testimony of SPO1 Mortel during cross-examination revealed
G.R. No. 230553 that there was no coordination report submitted with the
August 13, 2018 PDEA prior to the buy-bust operation. While minor deviations
from the procedures under RA 9165 would not automatically
Facts: exonerate an accused, this rule, however, could not defeat the
Appellant Gidoc was charged in four (4) separate Informations findings that the police operatives are negligent of their duties
for violations of Sections 5, 11, 12 and 15 of Article II of to preserve the integrity of the seized items from the appellant.
The nature of a buy-bust operation necessitates a stringent regards, Cipriano,Latario, Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and
application of the procedural safeguards specifically crafted by Madarang, the appellate court found them guilty not as
Congress in R.A. 9165 to counter potential police abuses. The principals but only as accessories.
prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have
been followed in proving the elements of the defined offense. 
Issue: WON the CA correctly convicted Cipriano et., al. as
Consequently, Section 21(a) of the [2002 Implementing Rules accessories
and Regulations of R.A. 9165 (IRR)] provides for a saving
clause in the procedures outlined under Section 21(1) of R.A. Ruling: NO.
9165, which serves as a guide in ascertaining those procedural
aspects that may be relaxed under justifiable grounds.
The CA erred in convicting Cipriano, Latario, Apelo, Abache,
It cannot brushed aside the apparent lack of coordination with Sumulong and Madarang as accessories. As pointed out by
the PDEA and the failure of the police operatives, having Justice Brion:
initial custody and control of the drugs, to physically inventory
and photograph the same immediately after seizure and "[I]llegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and
confiscation. What is particularly disturbing is that no other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs during parties, social
prosecution witness did ever explain why these procedures gatherings or meetings under Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a
were not followed. Further, the justifiable ground for non- crime of malum prohibitum, that is, the act is made wrong or
compliance must be proved as a fact. Here, it was markedly evil because there is a law prohibiting it. x x x
absent.
Since violation of Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165 is a crime of
In sum, the prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully mala prohibita, the degree of participation of the offenders is
establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating not considered. All who perpetrated the prohibited act are
reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the appellant. penalized to the same extent. There is no principal or
Considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the accomplice or accessory to consider. In short, the degree of
seized items not having been sufficiently established beyond participation of the offenders does not affect their liability, and
reasonable doubt, the acquittal of the appellant must follow. the penalty on all of them are the same whether they are
principals or merely accomplices or accessories.
Bondoc
The Court is convinced that only Ranada should be held liable
PEOPLE v. MARCELINO COLADO et al for violation of Section 14 of RA 9165. It is clear that it was
only Ranada who was caught having in his possession an
G.R NO. 185719 June 17, 2013
aluminum foil intended for using dangerous drugs. As to the
Section 14 R.A. 9165 – Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act other co-accused, not one drug paraphernalia was found in
their possession. The police officers were only able to find the
Facts: other drug paraphernalia scattered on top of a table. It is
In Criminal Case No. 13784-D, Cipriano, Latario, Ranada, already established that there was no conspiracy between
Apelo, Abache, Sumulong and Madarang (Cipriano et al., for Ranada and the other co-accused. As the CA correctly held,
brevity) were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia in mere presence at the scene of the crime does not imply
violation of Section 14, Article II of RA 9165. The appellants conspiracy.
were arrested after a buy-bust operation conducted by PO2
Richard Noble and his team. Upon reaching the area of the Clemente
buy-bust, PO2 Noble was introduced to Marcelino Colado.
G.R. No. 233702; June 20, 2018
The latter handed a small plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance to PO2 Noble. While PO2 Noble was PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANUEL
inspecting its contents, he noticed smoke coming from a table GAMBOA
inside the house of the couple around which were seven
persons. After he gave the pre-arranged signal, the backup FACTS:
team rushed to the scene. SPO2 Cruz and another police
officer went inside the house of Marcelino and Myra, where During a buy-bust operation, PO2 Nieva asked
they found Cipriano et al. gathered around a table littered with appellant if he could buy P200.00 worth of shabu, handing as
various drug paraphernalia such as an improvised water pipe, payment the buy-bust money. In turn, appellant gave PO2
strips of aluminum foil with traces of white substance, Nieva a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
disposable lighters, and plastic sachets. A strip of aluminum PO2 Nieva removed his bull cap, prompting the back-up
foil used for smoking marijuana was recovered from Ranada. officers to rush towards the scene and arrest appellant.
The RTC found Cipriano et al guilty of the offense charged. Subsequently, they recovered another plastic sachet and the
The CA affirmed the conviction of Ranada as he was caught buy-bust money. PO2 Nieva immediately marked the two (2)
having custody and control of a drug paraphernalia intended plastic sachets and inventoried the items at the place of arrest
for smoking and injecting illegal drugs to one’s body. As in the presence of appellant and a media representative named
Rene Crisostomo. Photographs of the confiscated items were Pasig City Police received an information, from a
also taken by PO3 Benitez during the marking and inventory. confidential informant that Piad was selling drugs along
Thereafter, PO2 Nieva brought appellant and the seized drugs Ortigas Bridge, Pasig City.They then decided to conduct a
to the police station where PO3 Benitez prepared the Request buy-bust operation.
for Laboratory Examination.
The team arrived at Piad residence at around 6:45pm.
ISSUE: The back-up team positioned themselves 5 meter away from
Piad’s House. The informant accompany PO1 Arevalo, the
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld appellant’s poseur-buyer, to Piad’s door. When Piad opened the door,
conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous PO1 Arevelo noticed that there were a group of male
Drugs. individuals inside, who were later on identified as Villarosa,
Carbo, and Davis. Apparently, they were celebrating Piad’s
birthday. The informant introduced the PO1 Arevelo with
HELD: Piad as buyer of shabu.

Piad asked PO1 Arevalo how much he wanted and

No, the police officers committed unjustified the latter answered P150.00. Thereafter, Piad closed the door
deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby and returned after a few seconds. PO1 Arevalo handed to Piad
putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the the P150.00 marked money. In turn, Piad handed to PO1
items purportedly seized from appellant. Arevalo a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance.
Under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the
apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after After the transaction was completed, PO1 Arevalo
seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and immediately grabbed Piad’s right arm and introduced himself
photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or as a police officer. Piad, however, struggled to free himself.
the person from whom the items were seized, or his PO1 Arevalo was eventually forced to enter the house amidst
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the struggle. The back-up team followed suit and entered the
house.
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 of the same. After arresting him, PO1 Arevalo asked Piad to bring
out the marked money. Piad complied. PO1 Arevalo also
An examination of the records reveals that the same asked him about the source of the drugs he sold. Piad pulled
was not done in the presence of any elected public official, as out a metal box from his pocket and it revealed two (2) other
well as a representative from the DOJ. In fact, such lapse was plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO1
admitted by PO2 Nieva. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to Arevalo marked all the items confiscated from Piad at the
place of the arrest. Meanwhile, the back-up team saw
provide justifiable grounds or show that special circumstances
Villarosa, Davis and Carbo inside the house, sitting on the
exist which would excuse their transgression, the Court is
floor. They were surrounded by three (3) sachets of white
constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value crystalline substance (one was heat sealed, while the other two
of the items purportedly seized from appellant have been were unsealed), aluminum foil, a tooter and disposable
compromised. lighters. The items were confiscated and were marked by PO1
Bayot thereat.
In a prosecution for the sale and possession of
dangerous drugs, the State carries the heavy burden of proving
he team brought Piad, Villarosa, Carbo, and Davis to
the integrity of the corpus delicti failing in which, renders the
the police headquarters. There, PO2 Pacurib, PO1 Bayot and
evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the
PO1 Arevalo executed a joint affidavit on their arrest. P/Insp.
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Sabio prepared the requests for laboratory examination and
MICHAELA DE GUZMAN drug test, which were brought by SPO1 Bayot to the Eastern
Police District Crime Laboratory. PSI Ebuen examined the
RA9165
confiscated items which tested positive for methamphetamine
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. GLEN PIAD hydrochloride.

January 25, 2016 Issue: WON the accused were guilty of section 11, Section 5
and Section 14 of RA no. 9165.
G.R. No. 213607
Ruling: Yes, the accused were guilty of section 11, Section 5
Facts: and Section 14 of RA no. 9165.

Piad was properly convicted of the crime of illegal

sale of dangerous drugs. It was proven that, on April 23, 2005,
the police went to his house to conduct a buy-bust operation; possession of dangerous drugs, through the testimonies of the
that PO1 Arevalo acted as the poseur-buyer; and that when police officers, showing that Mercader sold shabu to PO1
PO1 Arevalo gave the marked money to Piad, the latter Anos during the buy-bust operation and had in her possession
handed to him a small plastic sachet. A laboratory examination two (2) more plastic sachets containing the same. On the other
confirmed that the plastic sachet contained 0.05 gram of hand, the RTC did not give credence to Mercader's defenses of
shabu. Clearly, all the elements of the said crime were denial and extortion for lack of substance. Moreover, the RTC
established. ruled that the lack of prior surveillance and the failure to offer
the marked monies as evidence, do not invalidate the buy-bust
The prosecution was also able to prove that Piad operation, since the integrity and evidentiary value of the
committed the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. confiscated items were properly preserved and the chain of
When he was arrested in flagrante delicto, he was asked about custody sufficiently established to convict Mercader. On
the source of his drugs. He then brought out a metal box, appeal, CA affirmed RTC Decision ruling that there was an
which contained two (2) more sachets. It was confirmed in a unbroken chain of custody since PO1 Anos had in his
laboratory test that these sachets contained 0.06 gram of possession the subject sachets from the time of their seizure
shabu. until their turnover to the crime laboratory hence the present
appeal.
With respect to the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs during a party and the crime of illegal ISSUE
possession of drug paraphernalia during a party, the Whether the CA correctly upheld Mercader’s conviction for
prosecution also established that after the arrest of Piad, the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
team found Villarosa, Carbo and Davis sitting on the floor and
surrounded by one (1) heat-sealed sachet and two (2) unsealed COURT RULING
sachets. A laboratory report showed that these sachets The Court reversed the conviction of the accused.
contained a total of 0.03 gram of shabu. The said persons were
also found with an aluminum foil, a tooter and disposable Case law states that in both instances of violations of Secs. 5
lighters, which were considered drug paraphernalia. As and 11 of Art. II of R.A. 9165, it is essential that the identity
correctly held by the RTC, the elements of such crimes were of the prohibited drug be established with moral certainty,
proven because there was a proximate company of at least two considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral
(2) persons without any legal authority to possess the illicit part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, in order to
items, citing Section 14 of R.A. No. 9165. obviate any unnecessary doubt on its identity, the prosecution
has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and
account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment
Dela Cruz, Ramonito the drugs are seized up to its presentation in court as evidence
of the crime.
G.R. No. 233480, SECOND DIVISION, June 20, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. MELANIE B. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure
MERCADER which the police officers must follow when handling the
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary
value. Under the said section, prior to its amendment by RA
FACTS 10640, the apprehending team shall, among others,
As a result of a buy-bust operation conducted in the afternoon immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical
of September 8, 2003 by the Philippine National Police (PNP) inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of
of Marikina City, herein accused was charged with violations the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or
of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165 in separate Informations his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
filed against her. Facts revealed that based on reports received media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
from a confidential informant, Mercader and her husband, public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
alias "Tisoy," were selling drugs at their house located in inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized
Corazon Compound, Cogeo, Antipolo City. During the buy- drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory
bust operation, PO1 Anos, acting as a buyer, obtained a sachet within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for
of what turned out to be a shabu worth P200 from Mercader. examination.
Subsequently, a preventive search was conducted on Mercader
which yielded two (2) more plastic sachets of suspected shabu. The Court, however, clarified that under varied field
For her part, Mercader denied the charges against her, conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section
claiming that at around seven (7) o'clock in the evening of 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible. In
September 8, 2003, she was on her way home with her two (2) People v. Almorfe, the Court explained that for the above-
children when a police officer suddenly held her hand and saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the
accused her of selling drugs. Despite not finding drugs on her, reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and
she was forcibly taken to the police station of Marikina City evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been
where the police officers extorted money from her. preserved. Also, in People v. De Guzman, it was emphasized
that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven
RTC ruled against the accused holding that the prosecution as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these
sufficiently established all the elements of both illegal sale and grounds are or that they even exist.
 each, blocked their way. Mario did not alight from the
Guided by the foregoing, the Court finds that the police motorcab but a person pointed a gun at him. For said reason,
officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed Mario alighted. 
chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the
integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized He recalled, however, that there were other persons who
from Mercader. First, records reveal that the marking of the arrived after 30 minutes. His wallet and cellphone were taken
seized items was not done in the presence of any elected and he was surprised that they took "something contained in a
public official, as well as a representative from the DOJ and cellophane". They also took P500 from his pocket, which he
the media. Despite the failure to observe this requirement, no denies owning because he had only P70 in his possession.
justifiable ground was given to explain such lapse. In fact, There was also no lawyer during the search and inventory.
there is actually no mention of these required witnesses in this
case. Second, no physical inventory, as well as photography, The RTC convicted Manabat of the crimes charged and the
of the seized items were taken. PO1 Anos admitted the lack of CA affirmed the RTC's conviction. Hence, the instant appeal.
inventory. Case law states that the mere marking of the seized
drugs, unsupported by a physical inventory and taking of
photographs, and in the absence of the necessary personalities ISSUE:
under the law, fails to approximate compliance with the
mandatory procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Whether or not both the RTC and CA is correct in convicting
It is well-settled that the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 accused-appellant Manabat of the crimes charged.
is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as
a simple procedural technicality. In this light, prosecutors are HELD:
strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to prove
compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21[Article No. The Court acquits Manabat for failure of the prosecution
II] of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have the to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any
perceived deviations from the said procedure during the
In buy-bust operations, while it is true that the same is a
proceedings before the trial court.
legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for
apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, the law
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision nevertheless also requires strict compliance with procedures
dated March 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded.
CR-HC No. 08110 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, accused-appellant Melanie B. Mercader
The three required witnesses not being complied with;
is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. The Director of the
Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause her immediate
release, unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any Among the procedure that police operatives must follow under
other reason. RA 9165 to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs
used as evidence, was the requirement that the physical
inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the
Galita
same immediately after seizure and confiscation must be done
People vs. Manabat Y Dumagay (G.R. No. 242947, July 17, in the presence of the required witness, all of whom shall be
2019) required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof. The phrase "immediately after seizure and
confiscation" means that the physical inventory and
FACTS:
photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be
made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is
Two informations were filed against Manabat which stated only when the same is not practicable that the IRR allows the
that in the evening of the 17th of June 2013 in ABC Printing inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-
Press, Dipolog City, Manabat sold to a poseur-buyer one small bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest
transparent plastic sachet of a substance more popularly office of the apprehending officer/team. In this connection,
known as "Shabu" for which he received a marked Five this also means that the three required witnesses should
Hundred Peso bill. The second information stated that at the already be physically present at the time of apprehension - a
same incident, he has in his possession and control nine pieces requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust
small transparent also allegedly containing the same illegal team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its
drug. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both nature, a planned activity. Verily, a buy-bust team normally
charges. Thereafter, joint pre-trial and trial of Criminal Case has enough time to gather and bring with it the said witnesses.
Nos. 18353 and 18354 ensued.
In this case, the buy-bust operation was not conducted in
The defense, for its part, presented Manabat himself as its sole accordance with law. The witnesses were called and
witness. He testified that there was no buy bust operation eventually arrived at the scene of the crime only after the
conducted against him as he was just grappled by persons near accused-appellant was already apprehended by PO2 Barral.
Casa Jose. He testified that he was just on his way home on a On cross-examination, One of the apprehending officers
motorcab, when two motorcycles with two unknown riders readily admitted that during the apprehension, the witnesses
were not present. Considering that the buy-bust operation was People of the Philippines vs. Jayson Cijrillan Hambora
conducted seven days after the day it received information G.R. No. 198701 | December 10, 2012
about accused-appellant and was instructed to conduct the
buy-bust operation, the apprehending team had more than Facts:
enough time to ensure that all the mandatory procedures for
the conduct of the buy-bust operation would be sufficiently According to the prosecution, Hambora was caught of selling
met. and delivering shabu during a buy-bust operation conducted
by the CIDG. On the other hand, according to Hambora, he
The Certificate of Inventory being irregularly executed; was on his way home from collecting debt when he was
arrested by Police Officer Lasco, and was told that he was
The law also requires that the copies of the inventory should selling prohibited drugs. He denied the accusation that he’s
be signed by all the following persons: (a) accused or his/her selling prohibited drugs, nonetheless, he was charged of
representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.
representative from the media, and (d) a representative from
The RTC rendered a decision convicting HAmbora for illegal
the Department of Justice (DOJ).
sale of shabu as it gave full credence to the testimonies of the
police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation vis-à-vis
In this case, the Certificate of Inventory itself reveals that the
Hambora’s denial of the charge against him. On appeal, the
document was not signed by accused-appellant Manabat or
by his counsel or representative.  Nor did the prosecution CA upheld the finding of the RTC.
provide any explanation whatsoever as to why accused- Hence, the appeal. He questions the chain of custody of the
appellant Manabat was not able to sign the Certificate of
shabu confiscated in view of police officers failure to comply
Inventory.
with the statutory guidelines laid down in Section 21 of RA
9165.
The marking of the plastic sachets allegedly recovered was
irregularly done; Issue: Whether or not Hambora is guilty of vilation of sec. 5,
Art. II of RA No. 9165;
In the instant case, as incontrovertibly revealed by the
photographs of the plastic sachets allegedly retrieved from Ruling:
accused-appellant Manabat, only the date and initials of the
seizing officers were inscribed on the specimens. The time Yes, Hambora is guilty of violation of sec. 5, Art. II of RA
and place of the buy-bust operation were not indicated in the 9165.
markings, in clear contravention of the PNP's own set of The essential elements for illegal sale of shabu, to wit: (a) the
procedures for the conduct of buy-bust operations.
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
At this juncture, it is well to point-out that while the RTC and
payment for the thing. What is material in prosecutions for
CA were correct in stating that denial is an inherently weak
illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale
defense, it grievously erred in using the same principle to
convict accused-appellant Manabat. Both the RTC and CA actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
overlooked the long-standing legal tenet that the starting point the corpus delicti as evidence.
of every criminal prosecution is that the accused has the
A thorough examination of the records herein confirms the
constitutional right to be presumed innocent. And this
presence of all these elements, viz: (1) PO2 Lasco acted as
presumption of innocence is overturned only when the
prosecution has discharged its burden of proof in criminal poseur-buyer to entrap persons suspected of selling shabu
cases and has proven the guilt of the accused beyond during a legitimate buy-bust operation; (2) Hambora
reasonable doubt. It is also worth emphasizing that this approached PO2 Lasco and asked if the latter wanted to buy
burden of proof never shifts. Indeed, the accused need not shabu from him; (3) PO2 Lasco, as poseur-buyer, tendered
present a single piece of evidence in his defense if the State four (4) marked ₱100.00 bills to Hambora; and (3) Hambora,
has not discharged its onus. The accused can simply rely on in return, handed one (1) sachet of shabu to PO2 Lasco. The
his right to be presumed innocent. It is thus immaterial, in this chemistry report conducted on the specimen resulted in shabu
case or in any other cases involving dangerous drugs, that the with a total weight of 0.0743 gram.
accused put forth a weak defense.
Moreover, Hambora’s contention of precution’s violation of
To reiterate, breaches of the procedure committed by the sec 5, Art. II of RA 9165 must fail. Time and again,
police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the jurisprudence is consistent in stating that substantial
State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody
doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items
value of the corpus delicti would have been compromised. inadmissible.

Grande In the instant case, although the police officers did not strictly
comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A.
9165, their noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary (2) Whether or not Guadoyo is guilty of the crime illegal
weight of the drugs seized from Hambora as the chain of possession of dangerous drugs.
custody of the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the
circumstances of the case Ruling: (1) No. Hilario is not guilty of the crime charged.

Guilalas To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs

under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must
G.R. No. 210610 establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
vs. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually
MARILOU HILARIO y DIANA and LALINE took place and that the object of the transaction is properly
GUADAYO y ROYO, Accused presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same
drugs seized from the accused.
Facts: The prosecution charged Hilario before the RTC
through two separate Informations: (a) Crim. Case No. 10- Clearly, the identity and integrity of the sachet
2008 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, which involved a of shabu allegedly seized by PO1 de Sagun from Hilario were
sachet of shabu weighing 0.04 gram, referred to as "specimen not preserved, despite PO1 de Sagun's assertion that he had
A (NBS-1);" and (b) Crim. Case No. l I- 2008 for illegal been in possession of the said sachet from its seizure from
possession of dangerous drugs, which involved a sachet Hilario until its turnover to the crime laboratory. The
of shabu weighing 0.03 gram, referred to as "specimen B prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus
(NBS-2)." However, the prosecution changed its theory before delicti, much less, the identity of the corpus delicti with moral
the Court of Appeals, stating in its Brief for the Appellee that certainty. When there are doubts on whether the seized
only one sachet of shabu was confiscated from Hilario and substance was the same substance examined and established to
agreeing in the acquittal of Hilario in Crim. Case No. 11-2008 be the prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal
for the reason that she "cannot be convicted for possession of possession or illegal sale of a prohibited drug. The
the prohibited drugs she sold because possession of dangerous prosecution's failure to prove that the specimen allegedly
drugs is generally inherent in the crime of sale of illegal drugs. seized from Hilario was the same one presented in court is
Conviction for both crimes is not feasible." Meanwhile, the fatal to its case
Information in Crim. Case No. 13-2008 for illegal possession
of dangerous drugs against Guadayo involved a sachet The evidence for the prosecution were insufficient in material
of shabu weighing 0.04 gram. details and fraught with discrepancies and contradictions. PO1
de Sagun himself, who claimed to have seized, marked, and
Second, the documentary evidence of the prosecution, kept custody of the sachet of shabu seized from Hilario, could
particularly, (a) the Inventories of the items seized, dated not positively identify which between the two sachets
January 22, 2008, prepared by PO1 de Sagun and witnessed by of shabu he was presented with at the trial, marked as "NBS-I"
Mrs. Loma Orlina and Simplico "Sims" Garcia, and "NBS-2," was the one he actually seized from Hilario.
representatives of the DOJ and the media, respectively; (b) the Absent proof beyond reasonable doubt, the Court cannot
Laboratory Examination Requests dated January 23, 2008 for merely rely on the presumption that PO1 de Sagun regularly
the specimens seized, prepared by Police Superintendent performed his official duties.
Gaudencio Del Valle Pucyutan; and (c) Chemistry Report
Nos. BD-O12-08 and BD-OI3-08 dated January 23, 2008, (2) No. Guadoyo is not guilty of the crime illegal possession
issued by P/Cinsp. Delantar, all consistently state that there of dangerous drugs.
were two sachets of shabu from Hilario marked as "NBS-I"
(weighing 0.04 gram) and "NBS-2" (weighing 0.03 gram) and No shabu allegedly seized from appellant, Guadayo was
one sachet of shabu from Guadayo marked as "AAM-1." identified before the trial court.

Third, PO2 Magpantay did not testify before the RTC. PO1 de As aptly held by the Supreme Court in Malillin v. People:
Sagun conceded that he was not present when PO2 Magpantay
supposedly apprehended Guadayo and seized one sachet
The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of
of shabu from her possession, so PO1 de Sagun's testimony on
the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment
said matters are hearsay.
of conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the
identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.
And finally, the two sachets of shabu presented before the
RTC were marked with "NBS," the initials of PO1 de Sagun.
Manco
Issue: (1) Whether or not Hilario is guilty of the crime People v. Arposeple and Sulogaol
charged. G.R. No. 205787; November 22, 2017
J. Martires
FACTS: Arposeple and Sulogaol were both charged with accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit
three counts of violation of certain provisions of R.A. No. or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting,
9165 (Sec. 5, Art. II; Sec. 11, Art. II; and Sec. 12, Art II) ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body;
before the RTC of Tagbilaran City, Bohol. On 21 September and (2) such possession is not authorized by law.
2005, Jimenez, who was the Assistant City Drug Enforcement
Officer, held a briefing at his office on a buy-bust operation to In People v. Jaafar, we declared that in all prosecutions for
be carried out at Ubujan District, Tagbilaran City. The violations of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the
briefing, with the appellants as the subjects of the buy-bust dangerous drug itself, the existence of which is essential to a
operation, was attended by the buy-bust team composed of judgment of conviction; thus, its identity must be clearly
Bagotchay, Bafiocia, Sanchez, Brunidor, Tizon, Ramos, established. Equally significant therefore as establishing all the
Tabuelog Baculi, and the informant. After the conduct of buy elements of violations of R.A. No. 9165 is proving that there
bust and the arrest and search of appellants, Ramos turned was no hiatus in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs
over the seized items to Bagotchay who filled out the and paraphernalia. It would be useless to still proceed to
certificate of inventory. The inventory was witnessed by the determine the existence of the elements of the crime if the
appellants and by Barangay Ruiz and Ligue, and Castro and corpus delicti had not been proven beyond moral certainty.
Maestrado, who acted as representatives of the Department of Jurisprudence dictates the links that must be established in the
Justice (DOJ) and the media, respectively. Except for the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and
appellants who refused to sign the certificate of inventory, the marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
other witnesses did. accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of
On the same day, the Philippine Provincial Crime Laboratory the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
Office of Camp Francisco Dagohoy, Tagbilaran City investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
(laboratory), received a request for the laboratory examination officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
of the following: one piece transparent cellophane sachet examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the
(labelled PA/JS-09-21-01 YB); two pieces empty transparent marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
cellophane sachets (labelled PA/JS-09- 21-05-02 YB and court.
PNJS-09-21-05-03 YB); two pieces aluminum foil used as Ramos, Tabuelog, and Jimenez failed to explain how and
tooters (labelled PA/JS-09-21-05-04 YB and PA/JS-09-21-05- when the seized items were marked. Ramos stated that after
05); and two pieces aluminum foil (labelled PA/JS-09-21-05- the inventory of the items the appellants were brought to the
06 YB and PA/JS 09- 21-05-07 YB). These were marked as police station for proper disposition, i.e., the booking of the
specimens "A" "B" and "B-1 "· "C" and "C-1" "D" and "E," appellants, and the team's preparation of their report. Ramos
respectively. After the laboratory examination, De Guzman and Tabuelog executed their respective affidavits relative to
came up with a chemistry report stating that, except for the buy-bust operation but both failed to mention anything
specimen "E", all the specimens were positive for the presence therein as to what had happened to the seized items after the
of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The screening laboratory inventory and when these were probably brought to the police
test and the confirmatory examination conducted the following station for marking.
day were done in the presence of the appellants. The screening
tests on both appellants yielded positive results for the De Guzman admitted that she had no knowledge as to who
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride and negative for made the markings on the evidence. Even Ruiz's testimony
marijuana. The appellants were convicted by the RTC. The never made mention of the marking. True, there were already
CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. markings on the seized items when these were submitted to the
laboratory for examination but not one of the prosecution
ISSUE: Were the appellants guilty? witnesses testified as to who had made the markings, how and
RULING: No. Jurisprudence dictates that to secure a when the items were marked, and the meaning of these
conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, markings. Conspicuously, the uncertainty exceedingly
Art. II of R.A. 9165, the prosecution must establish the pervades that the items presented as evidence against the
following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the appellants were exactly those seized during the buy-bust
object of the sale, and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of operation.
the thing sold and the payment therefor. The essential The first link in the chain of custody was undoubtedly
elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. inherently weak which caused the other links to miserably fail.
11 are as follows: (1) the accused is in possession of an item The first link, it is emphasized, primarily deals on the
or object that is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such preservation of the identity and integrity of the confiscated
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely items, the burden of which lies with the prosecution. The
and consciously possesses the said drug. On the one hand, the marking has a twin purpose, viz: first, to give the succeeding
elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, handlers of the specimen a reference, and second, to separate
apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or
Sec. 12 are the following: (1) possession or control by the related evidence from the moment of seizure until their
disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, thereby of the essentials of a crime, delineating the nature and cause of
obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. the accusation against the accused otherwise accused will be
Absent therefore the certainty that the items that were marked, deprived of the opportunity to prepare his defense and violate
subjected to laboratory examination, and presented as his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause
evidence in court were exactly those that were allegedly seized of the accusation against him.
from Arposeple, there would be no need to proceed to evaluate
the succeeding links or to determine the existence of the other Ramos
elements of the charges against the appellants. Clearly, the
cases for the prosecution had been irreversibly lost as a result
of the weak first link irretrievably breaking away from the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHARLIE SORIN y
TAGAYLO
main chain.
G.R. No. 212635
Accused acquitted.
March 25, 2015
Oquendo
FACTS:
PEOPLE v. SULLANO
G.R. No. 228373 (2018) According to the prosecution, on November 2,
Per J. Gesmundo, Third Division 2005, the Philippine National Police (PNP) intelligence
section chief of El Salvador, Misamis Oriental received a
FACTS report that Sorin was selling illegal drugs at his residence in
Barangay Amoros, El Salvador, Misamis Oriental. Prior to this
date, or on October 25, 2005, a test-buy was conducted by the
Following a random drug testing conducted pursuant
PNP where Sorin sold illegal drugs to a civilian asset. As a
to Section 36(e), Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,
result, Police Chief Inspector Rolindo Soguillon formed a buy-
Police Officer Johhny K. Sullano was charged with violation bust team. The poseur-buyers were provided with four (4) one
of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Illegal Use of hundred peso bills as marked money.
Dangerous Drugs), after the urine samples taken from him
tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). At around 7:30 in the evening, the buy-bust team
proceeded to the target area. After which, PO2 Dador turned
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case on the over the seized items and the marked money to SPO1 Mugot,
ground that the prosecution failed prove that Sullano was who marked the same, prepared the inventory and request for
laboratory examination, and sent the seized items to the PNP
apprehended or arrested or actually caught using any
Crime Laboratory.
dangerous drug. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
Sorin, on the other hand, claimed that the sachets of
ISSUE shabu were planted by the police officers, and that no buy bust
operation occurred in Novemnber 2, 2005.
Whether Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
requires the apprehension or arrest of a person to be
considered as violating the provision. ISSUE: Whether or not Sorin’s conviction for violation of
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld.
RULING

Yes. An analysis of the construction of Section 15 RULING:

yields no other conclusion: the phrase “apprehended or
arrested” immediately follows “a person,” thus qualifying the YES. In order to convict an accused charged with
subject person. It necessarily follows that only apprehended or violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution
must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the
arrested persons found to be positive for use of any dangerous
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the
drug may be prosecuted under the provision. Congress, in consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the
enacting R.A. No. 9165, confined and restricted the liability payment.
arising from use of dangerous drugs to those who were
apprehended or arrested if charged with a violation of Section Accordingly, it is of paramount importance for the
15. prosecution to establish that the transaction actually took
place, and to present the corpus delicti, i.e., the seized drug/s,
The information in this case did not specifically before the court.
allege that accused was apprehended or arrested, an essential
element in the crime charged. An information must be Similarly, it must be shown that the integrity and evidentiary
complete, fully state the elements of the specific offense value of such seized items have been preserved. In other
alleged to have been committed as an information is a recital words, the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence
against an accused must be the same as that seized from him. Inside the CAIDSOT office, an inventory was allegedly
The chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary conducted and photographs of the marked money and the
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are sachet were taken. The sachet allegedly containing marijuana
removed. In People v. Viterbo, citing People v. Cervantes, the weighed 1.4 grams. An Information was filed charging
Court had occasion to elaborate on the requirement’s rationale: Lescano with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Testifying
during trial, PO3 Javier positively identified the drug
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under specimen. The Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must also issued a report on Lescano’s urine stating that dangerous
concur: (a) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and drugs were present in Lescano’s system. The laboratory
consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the examination on the sachet also yielded a positive result for
payment for it. As the dangerous drug itself forms an marijuana.
integral and key part of the corpus delicti of the crime, it is
therefore essential that the identity of the prohibited drug ISSUE
be established beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish
prosecution must be able to account for each link in the compliance with the requisites of Section 21 of Republic Act
chain of custody over the dangerous drug, from the No. 9165
moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it
was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti. RULING
NO.
The chain of custody requirement "ensures that unnecessary
doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
minimized if not altogether removed." following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the
transaction or sale took place and; (2) the presentation in court
It is well-settled that in criminal prosecutions involving illegal of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. As regards
drugs, the presentation of the drugs which constitute corpus delicti, Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous
the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the necessity of Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640
proving with moral certainty that they are the same seized stipulates requirements for the custody and disposition of
items. The lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug
allegedly seized from the accused strongly militates against a paraphernalia. Non-compliance is tantamount to failure in
finding of guilt, as in this case. Therefore, as reasonable doubt establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of
persists on the identity of the drugs allegedly seized from the the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous
accused, the latter’s acquittal should come as a matter of drugs. By failing to establish an element of these offenses,
course. non-compliance will acquit the accused.

Salvador Four links should be established in the chain of custody of the

confiscated item: 1. the seizure and marking, if practicable, of
the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
Lescano vs. People apprehending officer; 2. the turnover of the illegal drug seized
G.R. No. 214490 by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; 3. the
January 13, 2016 turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
J. Leonen forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and 4. the
(R.A. 9165) turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized
from the forensic chemist to the court.
FACTS
The City Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Team As regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section
(CAIDSOT) was informed that drug-pushing activities were 21(1) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as
taking place in a street in Olongapo. After confirming the amended, requires the performance of two (2) actions, namely:
information, they planned a buy-bust operation and designated 1. physical inventory and 2. photographing. Physical inventory
their roles. During the operation, the informant introduced must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation. As to
PO3 Javier to accused Lescano who asked how much where, it depends on whether the seizure was supported by a
marijuana he was willing to buy. PO3 Javier responded by search warrant. If a search warrant was served, the physical
handing the marked P100 bill to Lescano. Lescano then gave inventory and photographing must be done at the exact same
PO3 Javier a medium-sized plastic sachet supposedly place that the search warrant is served. In case of warrantless
containing marijuana. PO3 Javier then gave the pre-arranged seizures, these actions must be done "at the nearest police
signal to the buy-bust team. PO1 Mataverde approached them, station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
introduced himself as a police officer, and then frisked officer/team, whichever is practicable."
Lescano and recovered the buy-bust money. PO3 Javier
marked the medium-sized plastic sachet with the initials "HJ" Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) persons to
and turned it over to SPO1 Delos Reyes. Lescano was then be present during the physical inventory and photographing.
brought to the CAIDSOT office for investigation. These persons are: 1. the accused or the person/s from whom
the items were seized; 2. an elected public official; and 3. a
representative of the National Prosecution Service. There are,
however, alternatives to the first and the third. As to the first, Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez were
his or her representative or his or her counsel. As to the arrested and apprised of their constitutional rights. The
representative of the National Prosecution Service, a confiscated items were also inventoried, photographed, and
representative of the media may be present in his or her place. marked in their presence, as well as in the presence of the
These requirements are imperative. Even the doing of acts Barangay officials and the Department of Justice and media
which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually representatives. Subsequently, the arrested suspects were
comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice. brought to the PDEA Headquarters for investigation and
Accordingly, the mere marking of seized paraphernalia, mandatory drug testing, together with the seized objects, one
unsupported by a physical inventory and taking of of which was identified as shabu. Coronel, Villafuerte,
photographs, and in the absence of the persons required by Permejo, and Olivarez tested positive for shabu.
Section 21 to be present, does not suffice.
After trial on the merits, the RTC found Coronel,
In this case, the prosecution failed to comply with the Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez guilty beyond reasonable
requirements of chain of custody. It merely gave sweeping doubt of violating Article II, Sections 7 and 15 of Republic
guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs. Not Act No. 9165 for knowingly and illegally visiting a drug den
even the presumption of regularity in the performance of and using methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). On
official duties will suffice. While an inventory was supposed appeal, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.
to have been conducted, this was done neither in the presence
of accused, the person from whom the drugs were supposedly ISSUE:
seized, nor in the presence of his counsel or representative.
Likewise, not one of the persons required to be present was
shown to have been around during the inventory and Whether or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable
photographing. doubt of violating Article II, Section 7 of Republic Act No.
9165
It is true that Section 21(1), as amended, now includes a
proviso to the effect that "noncompliance of these RULING:
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly No. Section 7 (b) of Republic Act No. 9165 penalizes
preserved, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and the act of knowingly visiting a drug den. Before a person may
custody over said items." However, the prosecution has not be convicted under the foregoing provision, it must be shown
shown that there were "justifiable grounds" for dispensing that he or she knew that the place visited was a drug den, and
with compliance with Section 21. Hence, with the integrity of still visited the place despite this knowledge.
the corpus delicti of the crime for which accused was charged
is cast in doubt, accused must be acquitted. True, the drug test results sufficiently proved that
petitioners had used drugs some time before their arrest.
Santos However, assuming that petitioners were, in fact, at the alleged
drug den before their arrest, there was no showing how long
petitioners were at the alleged drug den, or how long the drugs
MEDEL CORONEL y SANTILLAN, RON ALDO had been in their system. In other words, there is no basis to
PERMEJO y ABARQUEZ, NESTOR VILLAFUERTE y assume that petitioners used drugs at the moment immediately
SAPIN and JOANNE OLIVAREZ y RAMOS vs. PEOPLE before arrest, and thus, at the location of the arrest.
OF THE PHILIPPINES
Assuming that persons who test positive for drugs
G.R. No. 214536 March 13, 2017 used them at the place of arrest is not sufficient to show that
they were aware of the nature of the suspected drug den before
FACTS: visiting it, absent any other circumstantial evidence.

A PDEA team meeting was held for the Furthermore, there was no attempt to show that
implementation of a search warrant. I02 Paragasa designated petitioners knew the nature of the alleged drug den, or even
IO2 Discaya as the seizing officer. While, IOI Million and IOI that they used drugs in the premises. The petitioners were not
Albao are the arresting officers. The PDEA team coordinated found to be in possession of any drugs. When petitioners were
with a team from the PNP - Southern Police District in arrested, nobody was found "in the act of using, selling or
implementing the search warrant. They arrived at the subject buying illegal drugs, nor packaging nor hiding nor
building at around 2:00 p.m., knocked on the door, and transporting the same." There were no acts alleged or evidence
announced that they had a search warrant. During the search, found, which would tend to show a familiarity with the nature
the team recovered, among others, transparent plastic sachets, of the place as a drug den.
aluminium foils, containers of white crystalline substance and
white powdery residue, disposable lighters, improvised plastic The crime of knowingly visiting a drug den under
scoops, a total amount of ₱580.00 in assorted bills, and Article II, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165 carries with it a
₱165.00 in coins. minimum penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one (1)
day, and a maximum of 20 years. It is not to be taken so
lightly that its elements can be presumed to exist without any their superiors. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely
effort to show them. Given the dearth of evidence in this case, impute a serious crime against an accused, the presumption of
the Court is constrained to acquit petitioners of this particular regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the
charge. However, petitioners do not assail the determination findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall
that they violated Article II, Section 15 of Republic Act No. prevail over appellant’s often self-serving and uncorroborated
9165, and this conviction must be sustained. claim of having been a victim of a frame-up.

Yacob An affirmative testimony coming from credible witnesses

without motive to perjure is far stronger than a negative
testimony. Records show that appellant and the police officers
PEOPLE VS. PHILIP DILAO are strangers to each other. Thus, there is no reason to suggest
GR NO. 170359, July 27, 2007 that the police officers were ill-motivated in apprehending
FACTS: appellant. Moreover, there is nothing in the records which
On July 19, 2002, an informant called Caloocan City Police shows even an iota of evidence that the prosecution witnesses
Station reporting one alias Philip was rampantly selling shabu merely fabricated their testimonies to wrongly impute such a
along the streets of Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. It was serious crime against the accused-appellant.
identified to be the accused, Philip Dilao. After meeting with The Supreme Court is convinced that the prosecution’s
the police team, informant informed that the accuses was evidence more than proved beyond reasonable doubt all the
standing outside a billboard court along Panagko St. The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of
police, disguised as a civilian, told the accused that he is a "shabu," to wit: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the
buyer of shabu and handed him the marked money. Appellant object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
seized him up and confiscated the plastic sachet containing a sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the contraband
white chrystalline substance. The forensic chemist confirmed to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money
that it was indeed methylamphetamine hydrochloride. successfully consummated the buy-bust operation between the
While the defense alleged that while they were playing entrapping police officers and the appellant. What is material
billiards, a group of police officials approached them and in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
frisked them. Nothing illegal was recovered from all of them. that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
He denied the charges leveled against him. He explained that the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.
he first saw PO2 Modina when he was allowed to alight the Yco
jeep at Toyota Motors, EDSA and that he saw PO2 De
Ocampo only during the inquest. He admitted that he had no
previous quarrel or misunderstanding with the arresting police PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
officer who he came to know only when he was arrested. (PDEA) vs. RICHARD BRODETT AND JORGE JOSEPH

Jose Bandico alias "Joker" substantially corroborated the G.R. No. 196390 September 28, 2011
testimony of appellant on the ownership of the billiard hall,
BERSAMIN, J.
the fact of the latter’s arrest on July 19, 2002 and that nothing
illegal was taken from appellant when frisked by the police in
the hall. Alias "Joker" also testified about the accused playing
rotation billiard with him since 2:00 p.m. and how the police Doctrine:
officers, after the arrest, even got the ₱260.00 bet.
The Regional Trial Courts shall comply strictly with the
ISSUE: provisions of Sec. 20 of RA 9165, and should not release
articles, whether drugs or non-drugs, for the duration of the
Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt trial and before the rendition of the judgment, even if owned
under Section 5 and 11 of RA 9165. by a third person who is not liable for the unlawful act.
HELD:

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial Facts: Accused Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph were
court and Court of Appeals rendering the accused guilty of RA charged with the violation RA 9165. Brodett then filed a
9165. It cannot be over-emphasized that a buy-bust operation Motion to Return Non-Drug Evidence. He averred that during
is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law his arrest, PDEA had seized several personal non-drug effects
at that, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. It is from him, including a 2004 Honda Accord car with license
often utilized by law enforcers for the purpose of trapping and plate no. XPF-551. The Prosecutor interposed its objection but
capturing lawbreakers in the execution of their nefarious the RTC, however, ordered the release of the car. Hence,
activities. Credence of the buy-bust operators cannot be PDEA assailed the order of the RTC in the Court of Appeals
undermined by the mere fact that law enforcers are perceived but the CA dismissed the same.
to resort to the practice of planting evidence to gain favor from
 seized from accused Brodett during a legitimate anti-illegal
operation. It argues that the Motion to Return Non-Drug
Hence, PDEA filed the present appeal contending that even if Evidence did not intimate or allege that the car had belonged
the car had belonged to Ms. Brodett, a third person, her to a third person; and that even if the car had belonged to Ms.
ownership did not ipso facto authorize its release, because she Brodett, a third person, her ownership did not ipso facto
was under the obligation to prove to the RTC that she had no authorize its release, because she was under the obligation to
knowledge of the commission of the crime. Brodett counters prove to the RTC that she had no knowledge of the
that Sec. 20 of RA 9165 clearly and unequivocally states that commission of the crime. It insists that the car is a property in
confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of custodia legis and may not be released during the pendency of
the supposed unlawful act in favor of the Government may be the trial.
done by PDEA, unless such proceeds or instruments are the
property of a third person not liable for the unlawful act; and
that PDEA is gravely mistaken in its reading that the third
person must still prove in the trial court that he has no The Court agrees with PDEA and the Office of the City
knowledge of the commission of the crime. Prosecutor. Indeed, forfeiture, if warranted pursuant to either
Article 45 of the RPC and Sec. 20 of RA 9165, would be a
part of the penalty to be prescribed. The determination of
whether or not the car (or any other article confiscated in
Issue: relation to the unlawful act) would be subject to forfeiture
Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the order for the could be made only when the judgment was to be rendered in
release of the car to Ms.Brodett the proceedings. Sec. 20 is also clear as to this.

Ruling: The status of the car (or any other article confiscated in
relation to the unlawful act) for the duration of the trial in the
NO. The CA did not err in affirming the order for the release RTC as being in custodia legis is primarily intended to
of the car to Ms.Brodett. The legal provision applicable to the preserve it as evidence and to ensure its availability as such.
confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds or instruments of To release it before the judgment is rendered is to deprive the
the unlawful act, including the properties or proceeds derived trial court and the parties access to it as evidence.
from illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs and precursors and Consequently, that photographs were ordered to be taken of
essential chemicals is Sec. 20 of R.A. No. 9165. There is no the car was not enough, for mere photographs might not fill in
question that the text of Sec. 20 of RA No. 9165 is similar to fully the evidentiary need of the Prosecution. As such, the
that of Article 45 of the RPC. The Court has interpreted and RTC’s assailed orders were issued with grave abuse of
applied Article 45 of the RPC in People v. Jose holding that discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for being
Article 45 of the RPC bars the confiscation and forfeiture of in contravention with the express language of Sec. 20 of R.A.
an instrument or tool used in the commission of the crime if No. 9165.
such "be the property of a third person not liable for the
offense”. Such interpretation is extended by analogy to Sec.
20.

However, the Office of the City Prosecutor proposed that the

delivery to the RTC of the listed personal effects for
safekeeping, to be held there throughout the duration of the
trial, would be necessary to enable the Prosecution and the
Defense to exhaust their possible evidentiary value. The
Office of the City Prosecutor further objected to the return of
the car because it appeared to be the vehicle used in the
transaction of the sale of dangerous drugs, and, as such, was
the instrument in the commission of the violation of Section 5
of RA 9165.

On its part, PDEA regards the decision of the CA to be not in

accord with applicable laws and the primordial intent of the
framers of RA 9165, and contends that the car should not be
released from the custody of the law because it had been