THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

LO HO WING alias PETER LO, LIM CHENG HUAT alias ANTONIO

LIM and REYNALDO TIA y SANTIAGO, defendants. LO HO
WING alias PETER LO, defendant-appellant.

G.R. No. 88017. January 21, 1991

GANCAYCO, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case involves the unlawful transport of metamphetamine, a

regulated drug under Republic Act No. 6425, as amended. One of its
derivatives is metamphetamine hydrochloride, notoriously known in street
parlance as "shabu" or "poor man's cocaine."

The Special Operations Group, received a tip from one of its informers
about an organized group engaged in the importation of illegal drugs,
smuggling of contraband goods, and gunrunning. Tia was introduced to
Lim Cheng Huat, who hired him as his travelling companion. Tia was
introduced to Peter Lo who would accompany him on the trip in lieu of Lim.

Lo and Tia left for Hongkong. Before they departed, Tia was able to
telephone Captain Palmera to inform him of their expected date of return to
the Philippines which is on October 6, 1987 at 2 pm. From Hong Kong, they
traveled to Guangzhou, China where Lo purchased 6 tin cans of tea which
contained Chinese drugs. The next day the two returned to Manila.

When they arrived at NAIA, the pair met with Lim. They hailed a
taxicab, and Lo and Tia boarded the taxicab while Lim followed in another
taxi cab. Meanwhile, a team composed of six operatives headed by Captain
Palmera was formed to act on the tip. Captain Palmera notified the Narcotics
Command (NARCOM) Detachment at the airport for coordination. Upon
seeing Tia and the accused, they followed them and stopped them. The other
cab carrying Lim sped away in an attempt to escape but was later
apprehended.
II. ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in not declaring the search and
seizure on the accused as illegal.

III. RULING:
No. The appellant contends that the authorities could have procured a
warrant search. Search and seizure supported by a valid warrant is not an
absolute rule. There are at least three (3) well-recognized exceptions. As set
forth in the case of Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, these are: [1] a search
incidental to an arrest, [2] a search of a moving vehicle, and [3] seizure of
evidence in plain view. The circumstances of the case clearly show that the
search in question was made as regards a moving vehicle.
Therefore, a valid warrant was not necessary to effect the search on
appellant and his co-accused. A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is
justified on the ground that "it is not practicable to secure a warrant because
the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which
the warrant must be sought.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY
SAPLA Y GUERRERO A.K.A. ERIC SALIBAD Y MALLARI, ACCUSED-
APPELLANT.

G.R. No. 244045. June 16, 2020

CAGUIOA, J:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

An officer on duty at the Regional Public Safety Battalion (RPSB) in

Tabuk, Kalinga received a text message from an informant (concerned
citizen) that an individual will be transporting marijuana from Kalinga to
Isabela. PO2 Jim Mabiasan (not the officer who received the text message)
then relayed the information to the deputy commander who coordinated
with the PDEA.

On the same day, a follow up information via text message was

received by the RPSB this time detailing the description of the drug courier,
to wit: male, wearing collared white shirt with green stripes, red ball cap,
and carrying a blue sack; he will be boarding a passenger jeepney bearing
plate number AYA 270 bound for Roxas, Isabela.
Based on this information, a checkpoint was organized by the PNP.

In court, Sapla denied the allegations as he claimed that when he boarded

the jeep, he did not have any sack with him; that the blue sack was only
attributed as belonging to him by the police. Sapla was convicted by the trial
court. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and ruled that the
informant’s tip was sufficient to engender probable cause upon the minds of
the police officers; that it was sufficient to conduct a warrantless search and
seizure.

II.ISSUE:
Whether or not an informant’s tip is sufficient to engender probable
cause and police officer may justify the search as consented search.
III.RULING:

No. the Supreme Court said that a mere informant’s tip is not sufficient
to engender probable cause. The police officer receiving the informant’s tip
must rely on his senses. The police officer must not adopt the suspicion
initiated by another person. The police officer, with his/her personal
knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act
and not merely rely on the information passed on to him/her.
Law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of a tip.

A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient
to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that
will arouse suspicion. The Supreme Court noted that there were two
previous decisions (Pp. vs Maspil and Pp. vs Bagista) which ruled that a
confidential tip was sufficient to engender probable cause, however, the
Supreme Court in this case declared that these two cases are now being
abandoned to settle the issue once and for all.
SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), petitioner vs. DANGEROUS DRUGS
BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
(PDEA), respondents.

G.R. No. 157870. November 3, 2008

VELASCO, JR., J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

In its Petition for Prohibition under Rule 65, petitioner Social Justice
Society (SJS), a registered political party, seeks to prohibit the Dangerous
Drugs Board (DDB) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)
from enforcing paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36 of RA 9165 on the
ground that they are constitutionally infirm.

For one, the provisions constitute undue delegation of legislative

power when they give unbridled discretion to schools and employers to
determine the manner of drug testing. For another, the provisions trench in
the equal protection clause inasmuch as they can be used to harass a student
or an employee deemed undesirable. And for a third, a person's
constitutional right against unreasonable searches is also breached by said
provisions.

II. ISSUE:

Whether or not paragraphs (c), (d), (f), and (g) of Sec. 36, RA 9165 is
unconstitutional.

III. RULING:

No. The provisions of R.A. 9165 requiring mandatory, random, and

suspicion less drug testing of students is constitutional since it is within the
prerogative of educational institutions to require, as a condition for
admission, compliance with reasonable school rules and regulations and
policies. The right to enroll is not absolute; it is subject to fair, reasonable,
and equitable requirements.

School children are most vulnerable to the physical, psychological, and

addictive effects of drugs. Maturing nervous systems of the young are more
critically impaired by intoxicants and are more inclined to drug dependency.
Their recovery is also at a depressingly low rate.

The random drug testing shall be undertaken under conditions to

protect the employee's privacy and dignity. RA 9165 was enacted as a
measure to stamp out illegal drugs in the country and thus protect the well
- being of the citizens, especially the youth, from the deleterious effects of
dangerous drugs. The law intends to achieve this through the medium,
among others, of promoting and resolutely pursuing a national drug abuse
policy in the workplace via a mandatory random drug test.

To the Court, the need for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug
use is substantial enough to override the individual's privacy interest under
the premises. The Court can consider that the illegal drug menace cuts across
gender, age group, and social - economic lines. And it may not be amiss to
state that the sale, manufacture, or trafficking of illegal drugs, with their
ready market, would be an investor's dream were it not for the illegal and
immoral components of any of such activities.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. PO1 JOHNNY K.
SULLANO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 228373. March 12, 2018

GESMUNDO, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

Senior Superintendent Nerio T. Bermudo (P/SSupt Bermudo), ordered

fifty (50) randomly selected police officers under the Butuan City Police
Office to undergo drug testing pursuant to Section 36, Article III of R.A. No.
9165. Among those who underwent testing was respondent, a police officer
at Butuan City Police Station 5. Given the result of the random drug test and
confirmatory test, P/SSupt. Bermudo filed a Complaint Affidavit against
respondent for violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Respondent then filed a Manifestation claiming that he voluntarily

submitted to the random drug test ordered by P/SSupt. Bermudo. The urine
sample he submitted gave a positive result to the presence of
methamphetamine and denies the use of the dangerous drug but had no
means to contest the test's veracity. The respondent entered into a
rehabilitation program with Cocoon Foundation for Substance Abuse and
pleads for the dismissal of the complaint against him.

The RTC granted the demurrer of evidence since the respondent was
never arrested nor apprehended committing an offense and was only
subjected to a random drug examination per directive of the PNP Superior
Officer. The accused should not be charged for violation of Section 15, Article
II of R.A. 9165, but should be administratively charged for being a user of
prohibited drugs under the other provisions of R.A. 9165.
II. ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in deciding that Section 15,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 exclusively apply to circumstances where the
accused was apprehended or arrested.

III. RULING:

No. Under Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, it requires the
apprehension or arrest of a person for violating the provision.

Under Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, it provides that, use of
Dangerous Drugs. — A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be
positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be
imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a
government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article
VIII of this Act.

A rule in statutory construction that the express mention of one

person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all others, also known as
expressio unius est exclusio alterius, is relevant and applicable. This rule
applies where the very terms of the statute expressly limit it to certain
matters; thus it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to
others. The legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a
statute had the intention been not to restrict its meaning and to confine its
terms to those expressly mentioned. In the provision in question, Congress
itself confined and restricted the liability arising from use of dangerous
drugs to those who were apprehended or arrested if charged with a violation
of Section 15.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. GERARDO
ENUMERABLE y DE VILLA, Appellant.

G.R. No. 207993. January 21, 2015

CARPIO, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

On appeal is the 31 January 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in

CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04948. The Court of Appeals affirmed the 15 February
2011 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 of Lipa City convicting
appellant Gerardo Enumerable y De Villa for violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165.

Gerardo Enumerable was arrested in a buy-bust operation headed by

PO3 Edwalberto Villas and Police Inspector Danilo Balmes. Three sachets of
shabu were turned over to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory on the
same date. However, that Crime Laboratory endorsed the request with the
specimens on June 4, noo4 to the Regional Crime Laboratory in Calamba
City. The RTC convicted Enumerable for drug pushing and CA sustained
the offense charged.

II. ISSUE:

Is the identity and integrity of the confiscated illegal drug established?

III. RULING:

No. It is settled that in prosecutions for the illegal sale of a dangerous

drug, not only must the essential elements of the offense be proved beyond
a reasonable doubt, but likewise the identity of the prohibited drug. The
dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact
of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.
 However, the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of
custody of the illegal drug gravely compromised its identity and integrity.
Hence, Gerardo Enumerable is acquitted based on reasonable doubt.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. NATHANIEL
PASION Y DELA CRUZ A.K.A. "ATHAN" AND DENNIS MICHAEL
PAZ YSIBAYAN, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 203026. January 28, 2015

PEREZ, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
promulgated on 30 January 2012 affirming the Decision2 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) Branch 13, Laoag City sustaining the verdict of conviction
of accused-appellants Nathaniel Pasion y dela Cruz (Pasion) and Dennis
Michael Paz y Sibayan (Paz) for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic
Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002."
The Information against Paz for delivering and possessing "shabu" and
"marijuana" read: Criminal Case No. 14075. On June 9, 2009, accused sold
one small, heat-sealed plastic sachet containing "shabu", a dangerous drug,
weighing 0.0987gram worth PhP 1,000.00 to an agent poseur-buyer in the
person of Fesway, without the necessary authority or license from the
appropriate government agency or authority to do so.

Criminal Case 14076: On June 10, 2009, accused have in his possession,
control, and custody one small, heat-sealed plastic sachet containing dried
marijuana leaves, weighing 2.9921g, without having the authority or license
to possess the same from the appropriate government agency or authority.

The foregoing charges were consolidated and tried jointly having

arisen from related anti-narcotics operations conducted on the same day of
10 June 2009 by the Ilocos Norte Special Enforcement Team of the PDEA,
Regional Office I. After trial, the RTC found that the prosecution had
fulfilled the required burden of proof and that the prosecution disproved
and overcame the presumption of innocence afforded an accused
with evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Both accused-
appellants Pasion and Paz appealed their conviction. The appellate court
subsequently affirmed the RTC’s decision. Pasion and Paz first insisted that
the intelligence officers’ testimonies were riddled with inconsistencies,
specifically on their respective locations during their surveillance of
accused-appellants Pasion and Paz which, they argue, indicate that no actual
surveillance was carried out.

II. ISSUE:
Whether accused-appellants violated RA 9165.

III. RULING:
Yes, the decisions of the RTC and CA were affirmed. In any criminal
prosecution, the defenses of denial and frame-up, like alibi, are considered
weak defenses and have been invariably viewed by the courts with disfavor
for they can just as easily be concocted but are difficult to prove. Negative in
their nature, bare denials and accusations of frame
up cannot, as a rule, prevail over the affirmative testimonies of truthful
witnesses.
The foregoing principle applies with equal, if not greater, force in
prosecutions involving violations of R.A. No. 9165, especially those
originating from buy-bust operations. In such cases, the testimonies of the
police officers who conducted the buy-bust operations are generally
accorded full faith and credit, in view of the presumption of regularity
in the performance of public duties. Hence, when lined up against an
unsubstantiated denial or claim of frame-up, the testimonies of the officers
who caught the accused red handed are given more weight and usually
prevail. To overcome the presumption of regularity, jurisprudence teaches
us that there must be clear and convincing evidence that the police officers
did not properly perform their duties or that they were prompted with ill
motive. While the defense denied having violated R.A. No. 9165, it offered
no evidence that the arresting officers had been improperly or maliciously
motivated in effecting the arrest of appellants.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee, vs. RONALDO
CASACOP y AMIL, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 210454. January 13, 2016

PEREZ, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

SPO4 Dela Pena, acting on a tip from an informant that a certain

Edong was selling Shabu in Quezon Street, then formed a buy‐bust team.
Thereafter, the buy‐ bust team proceeded to the target area. POl Signap
and the informant approached appellantʹs house. PO1 Signap was
introduced to appellant by the informant as the buyer of shabu. He
handed the marked money, consisting of three (3) P100.00 bills, to
appellant, who took a plastic sachet from his left pocket and gave it to him.
PO1 Signap conducted a physical inventory of the seized items and
correspondingly marked them in appellantʹs house.

Appellant was brought to the police station. Thereat, SPO4 Dela Pena
prepared a certificate of inventory.A request letter was sent to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime laboratory for the examination of
the seized items. Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas issued
Chemistry Report No. D‐808‐05 which confirmed the seized items as
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

II. ISSUE:

Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

crime of violation of RA 9165.

III. RULING:

Yes. For the successful prosecution of a case for illegal sale of shabu,
the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and
the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor.

On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession of

dangerous drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused
is in possession of an item or object, which is identified as a prohibited
drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused
freely and consciously possessed the drug.

All the elements in the prosecution for illegal possession of

dangerous drugs and paraphernalia were likewise established. Found
in appellantʹs pocket after he was caught in flagrante were two (2) more
plastic sachets containing shabu, an improvised glass tooter containing
shabu residue and the rolled aluminum foil with shabu residue. Under
Rule 126, Section 13, a person lawfully arrested may be searched for
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the
commission of an offense without a warrant. There was no showing that
appellant had legal authority to possess the shabu and its paraphernalia.
Moreover, the fact that these contrabands were found in his physical
possession shows that he freely and consciously possessed them.

As the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the

seized items to establish the corpus delicti were proven, substantial
compliance with Section 21, paragraph I, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 will
suffice.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MICHAEL
MAONGCO y YUMONDA and PHANS BANDALI y SIMPAL, Accused-
Appellants.

G.R. No. 196966. October 23, 2013

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

Accused-appellants were separately charged for illegally dispensing,
delivering, transporting, distributing, or acting as brokers of dangerous
drugs.
Alvin Carpio was apprehended for illegal possession of dangerous drug
(shabu) during the conduct of special operation. When he was asked about
the source of the shabu, he told the police that it was Michael Maongco.
Thereafter, the police officers went to the place were Maongco was waiting
and apprehended after the after the latter showed the 1 “bulto” of shabu.
Arugay asked were the other “bulto” was, Maongco said that it was in the
possession of Phans Bandali who was waiting in Jollibee, Pantranco Branch.
Thereafter, they went to the place and Maongco told the police oficers
that Bandali was wearing a blue t- shirt. Vener Ong, a public officer,
approached Banndali and demanded from the latter the other half of the
drugs ordered. Bandali voluntarily handed over a sachet of shabu. Then
Bandali was apprised of his violation and constitutional rights. The seized
shabu was properly preserved in accordance with Section 21 (a) of the
Implementing Rules of R.A. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of
2002).
Maongco and Bandali, the petitioner, were both charged of the
violation of Article ll, Section 5 or R.A. No. 9165. The petitioners alleged that
there was no actual sale of dangerous drug in the operation conducted by
police officers.
II. ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioners may still be held criminally liable under
Section 5, Article ll of R.A. No. 9165 even if there was no legitimate buy- bust
operation

III. RULING:
Yes. The court ruled in the jurisprudence that the crime of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs necessary includes the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. The same ruling may also be applied to the other acts
penalized under Article ll, Section 5 of R.A. Act 9165, because for the accused
to be able to trade, administer, dispense, give away to another, distribute,
dispatch in transit, or transport any dangerous drug, he must necessarily be
in possession of said drugs. Thus, still, the petitioner are still be held liable.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. CAMALOUING
SAMANODING, LARA y BRION, Appellant.

G.R. No. 199938. January 28, 2013

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

This is an appeal from the April 7, 2011 Decision1 of the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02479 which affirmed in toto the
August 29, 2006 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City,
Branch 231, convicting appellant Camaloding Laba y Samanoding
(appellant) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No.
91653 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of ₱500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, and costs.

Appellant arrived at the Manila Domestic Airport and was about to

take his flight bound for Davao City. When he approached the initial check-
in area, Villocillo, a frisker assigned thereat, physically searched the person
of appellant and suspected that the latter’s oversized white rubber shoes,
with the identifying mark "Spicer, seemed to contain what felt like rice.
Upon inspection of the rubber shoes, Villocillo discovered three (3) plastic
sachets containing shabu.

The following day, upon qualitative examination, it was found out that
the confiscated sachets, containing 196.63 grams of white crystalline
substance, is positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.

Consequently, appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II

of RA 9165 for feloniously transporting 196.63 grams of shabu, a dangerous
drug, by concealing it inside his worn colored white rubber shoes.
II. ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court committed
any reversible error in convicting appellant as charged.

III. RULING:

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the said offense, the RTC, as affirmed by the
CA, considered the fact that he was caught in flagrante delicto in possession
of an extremely large amount of prohibited drugs inside the airport, before
boarding his flight bound for Davao City. The RTC explained that Sec. 5,

Art. II of RA 9165 penalizes the act of transporting shabu, under

which provision appellant must clearly be convicted. While it may be
argued that appellant was yet to board the aircraft or travel some distance
with the illegal drugs in his possession, it cannot be denied that his presence
at the airport at that particular instance was for the purpose of transporting
or moving the dangerous drugs from one place to another.

Moreover, it may be reasonably inferred from the deliberations of

the Congress that if a person is found to have more than five (5) grams
of shabu in his possession, then his purpose in carrying them is to dispose,
traffic, or sell it.
SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. y ASUELA, Petitioner, vs. HON. FRANK E.
LOBRIGO, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3,
Legazpi City, Albay, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

G.R. No. 226679. August 15, 2017

PERALTA, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

Petitioner Salvador A. Estipona, Jr. is the accused for violation of
Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs). That
on or about the 21st day of March, 2016, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines,
the accused not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any
regulated drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did
then willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have, in his possession and
under his control and custody, one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing 0.084 [gram] of white crystalline substance, which when
examined were found to be positive for Methamphetamine Hydrocloride a
dangerous drug.
Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea
Bargaining Agreement,5 praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and,
instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 being a first-time offender and the minimal quantity of the
dangerous drug seized in his possession.
The prosecution moved for the denial of the motion for being
contrary to Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which is said to be justified by the
Congress' prerogative to choose which offense it would allow plea
bargaining.
On July 12, 2016, respondent Judge Frank E. Lobrigo of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 3, Legazpi City, Albay, issued an Order denying
Estipona's motion.
Estipona filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied.

II. ISSUE:
Whether pleas bargaining is allowed for drug cases.
III. RULING:
Yes. Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. In this jurisdiction, plea
bargaining has been defined as "a process whereby the accused and the
prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject
to court approval." There is give-and-take negotiation common in plea
bargaining. The essence of the agreement is that both the prosecution and
the defense make concessions to avoid potential losses. Properly
administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief virtues
of the system - speed, economy, and finality - can benefit the accused, the
offended party, the prosecution, and the court.
Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea
bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it
operates as a means to implement an existing right by regulating the
judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive
law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or
infraction of them.
The plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
court, which may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense which
is necessarily included in the offense charged. The word may denotes an
exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to allow the accused
to make such plea. Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of
guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be
allowed as a matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the
accused.
Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the pre-trial, or
even up to the point when the prosecution already rested its case.
If the accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense subsequent to a
bail hearing or after the prosecution rested its case, the rules allow such a
plea only when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to
establish the guilt of the crime charged.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. ROMY LIM y
MIRANDA, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No. 231989. September 04, 2018

PERALTA, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

IO1 Orellan and his teammates were at Regional Office X of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Based on a report of a
confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Romy" has been engaged in the
sale of prohibited drugs in Zone 7, Cabina, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City,
hey were directed by their Regional Director, Lt. Col. Edwin Layese, to
gather for a buy-bust operation.
The latter, with the rest of the team members, immediately rushed to
Lim's house. They then entered the house because the gate was opened.
IO1 Orellan declared that they were PDEA agents and informed Lim and
Gorres, who were visibly surprised, of their arrest for selling dangerous
drug.
The day after, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered both accused and
the drug specimens to Regional Crime Laboratory Office 10. IO1 Orellan
was in possession of the sachets of shabu from the regional office to the
crime lab. Based on her examination, only Lim was found positive for the
presence of shabu.

II. ISSUE:
Whether or not the procedure mandated in Section 21(1), Art II of
R.A. No. 9165 was followed?

III. RULING:
No. The chain of custody rule is but a variation of the principle that
real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into
evidence. To establish a chain of custody sufficient to make evidence
admissible, the proponent needs only to prove a rational basis from which
to conclude that the evidence is what the party claims it to be. In other
words, in a criminal case, the prosecution must offer sufficient evidence
from which the trier of fact could reasonably believe that an item still is
what the government claims it to be.
Specifically in the prosecution of illegal drugs, the well-established
federal evidentiary rule in the United States is that when the evidence is
not readily identifiable and is susceptible to alteration by tampering or
contamination, courts require a more stringent foundation entailing a chain
of custody of the item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable
that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been
contaminated or tampered with.
It must be alleged and proved that the -presence of the three witnesses
to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not
obtained due to reason/s such as:

(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was
a remote area;

(2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized
drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the
accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf;

(3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable

acts sought to be apprehended;

(4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media

representative and an elected public official within the period
required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile
through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of
being charged with arbitrary detention; or

(5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which

often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law
enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses
even before the offenders could escape.
 JUNIE MALILLIN Y. LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

G.R. No. 172953. April 30, 2008

TINGA, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

In this Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, Junie
Malillin y Lopez (petitioner) assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated 27 January 2006 as well as its Resolution dated 30 May 2006 denying
his motion for reconsideration. The challenged decision has affirmed the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon City, Branch
52 which found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, a
prohibited drug.

A team composed of P/Insp. Catalino Bolanos, with PO3 Roberto

Esternon, SPO1 Pedro Docot, SPO1 Danilo Lasala and SPO2 Romeo
Gallinera entered petitioner Junie Mallillin’s house on the strength of a
warrant of search and seizure. Junie was suspected of possessing shabu.
Present during the search was Junie’s wife Sheila, his mother Norma, and
barangay kagawad Delfin Licup. The search yielded 2 plastic packets of
shabu and 5 empty packets containing shabu residue. Mallillin was thus
charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA. No. 9165, (The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

Esternon testified that the empty packets were found in a denim bag
behind the bedroom door, and that he found the two full packets under a
pillow and called Gallinera to have the items recorded and marked. On
cross-examination, he testified that he conducted the search alone; that
Mallillin handed him the pillow which included the two full packets; and
that he brought the items to the police station for a “true inventory”, then
to the trial court, then to the laboratory. The forensic chemist positively
claimed that the substance in the packets were shabu.
 Raising irregularity of search and seizure, petitioner Mallillin
testified that Esternon began the bedroom search with Mallillin and Licup
inside. However, the search was interrupted when one of the officers noted
that Sheila tucked something inside her underwear. Everyone in the
bedroom was asked to step outside with the sole exception of Esternon,
while a lady officer and Sheila entered such that the former may proceed
with a bodily examination (leaving only Sheila, the lady officer, and
Esternon in the room). While this transpired, Mallillin was asked to buy
cigarettes from a nearby store. Upon his return, he was informed that there
was nothing on Sheila. He was then requested by Esternon to return to the
bedroom, whereupon he was asked to lift the mattress and then the
headboard. He was lifting the headboard when Esternon announced that
he found the shabu packet in the pillow.

II. ISSUE:

Whether there was regularity in the performance of duties of the

officers such that the evidence obtained was sufficient to convict.

III. RULING:

No. The mere fact of unauthorized possession is not sufficient to

create the moral certainty to sustain guilt. The chain of custody
requirement is there to ensure that the item seized as evidence is the same
one presented in court. This requires that every person who handled the
contraband would testify to how it was handled, to ensure that the item
remained in the same condition as it was when it was retrieved. While not
every case needs a ‘perfect’ chain of custody to be valid, “an unbroken
chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real
evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its
condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has
failed to observe its uniqueness.” The contraband’s susceptibility to
tampering dictates the strictness of the application of the chain of custody
rule.
 The testimony is insufficient and raises significant doubts in relation
to the chain of custody rule and thus the validity of the evidence. Only two
people (Esternon and Arroyo) out of four total (including Gallinera and
Garcia) who personally handled the substance were presented to testify
before the court. Since Gallinera was the one who marked and recorded the
exhibits, his testimony was critical. The prosecution offered no explanation
for the failure to present Gallinera and Garcia.

The argument that the search was conducted in a regular manner and
must be presumed so is incorrect. There is no logical consistency to
Mallillin being tasked, on his own, to buy cigarettes for the police officers,
and Bolanos’ stationing his officers outside the house to prevent escape.
Esternon’s claim that Mallillin handed over the pillow which allegedly
contained the two full packets is inconsistent with ordinary human
behavior. Why would one risk discovery of the paraphernalia by handing
it, albeit concealed, to the investigator?
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROSE NANDI y
SALI, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 188905. July 13, 2010

MENDOZA, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

This is an appeal from the October 23, 2008 Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA), which affirmed in toto the August 2, 2007 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103, Quezon City, finding accused Rose
Nandi guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the crime of
Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing her to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment.

Chief of Police Colonel Ratuita received an information that someone

was selling shabu along Tandang Sora Avenue. Col. Ratuita immediately
formed a buy-bust operation team. The team prepared the Five Hundred
Pesos (₱500.00) marked money with initials "CCC" on the face of the bill.
SPO4 Brigido Ann, in the meantime, prepared a pre-operations report and
recorded the formation of the buy-bust team in the dispatch book, including
the important details of the buy-bust operation.
The team, together with the informant, proceeded to Tandang Sora
Avenue, Quezon City and positioned themselves around Culiat High School
where the alleged shabu sale was to take place. The informant first talked
with the accused (ROSE NANDI y SALI) and later called and introduced
PO1 Collado as the buyer. The accused asked how much PO1 Collado was
buying and the latter replied that he wanted Two Hundred Pesos (₱200.00)
worth of shabu. PO1 Collado handed over the marked money to the accused,
and, in return, the latter gave a small transparent plastic sachet. After
examining the contents, PO1 Collado scratched his head. As this was the pre-
arranged signal, the other team members rushed towards them and
apprehended the accused. PO1 Collado told her that she was being arrested
for selling drugs, frisked her, recovered from her the marked money, and
then informed her of her rights.
The accused was immediately taken to Police Station 3 in Talipapa,
Quezon City, where an inquest paper was prepared and the recovered items
handed over to the investigator. The documents and the recovered specimen
were then taken to the crime laboratory, where Forensic Chemist Bernardino
M. Banac, Jr., conducted a three-step examination consisting of a physical
test, a chemical test and the confirmatory test. The sample tested positive for
shabu.

II. ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the accused-

appellant’s conviction beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of
section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165.

III. RULING:

Yes, the Court finds that certain facts of substance have been
overlooked, which if only addressed and appreciated, would have altered
the outcome of the case against the accused. Accordingly, a departure from
the general rule is warranted.

It is well-settled that in prosecution of cases of illegal sale of dangerous

drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the
transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. Proof of the corpus delicti in a buy-bust
situation requires not only the actual existence of the transacted drugs but
also the certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court were the
very ones seized. This is a condition sine qua non for conviction since drugs
are the main subject of the illegal sale constituting the crime and their
existence and identification must be proven for the crime to exist."

There is no evidence either on how the item was stored, preserved,

labeled, and recorded. PO1 Collado could not even provide the court with
the name of the investigator. He admitted that he was not present when it
was delivered to the crime laboratory.13 It was Forensic Chemist Bernardino
M. Banac, Jr. who identified the person who delivered the specimen to the
crime laboratory. He disclosed that he received the specimen from one PO1
Cuadra, who was not even a member of the buy-bust team. Per their record,
PO1 Cuadra delivered the letter-request with the attached seized item to the
CPD Crime Laboratory Office where a certain PO2 Semacio recorded it and
turned it over to the Chemistry Section.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. MARIO
MANABAT Y DUMAGAY, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No. 242947. July 17, 2019

CAGUIOA, J.:

I.FACTS OF THE CASE:

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal filed by accused-appellant

Mario Manabat y Dumagay (accused-appellant Manabat) assailing the
Decision dated August 2, 2018 (assailed Decision) of the Court of Appeals
(CA) Special Twenty Third Division in CA-G.R. CR--HC No. 01781-MIN,
which affirmed the Decision dated September 5, 2017 of the Regional Trial
Court of Dipolog City, Branch 8 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 18353 and
18354, finding accused-appellant Manabat guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,
otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,"
as amended.

Manabat feloniously sell, distribute and deliver to a poseur-buyer

one (1) small transparent plastic sachet of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, more popularly known as "Shabu" approximately
weighing 0.2079 gram, after receiving marked Five Hundred Peso bill
bearing Serial No. TMS 18077 as payment. The marked money and the sum
of One Hundred Fifty Pesos (P150.00), Philippine Currency which are
proceeds of his illegal trade were recovered from his possession together
with one (1) unit Nokia 1280 which he used in his illegal trade, and
Criminal Case No. 18354 Manabat have in his possession and control nine
(9) pieces small transparent plastic sachet of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, more popularly known as "Shabu", a form of dangerous
drug, approximately weighing a total of 1.8515 grams, without legal
authority to possess the same in violation of Section 11, Par. 3, Article II of
R.A. 9165.
Manabat pleaded not guilty to both charges. Criminal case 18353 and
18354 was joint pretrial and trial.

II. ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC and CA erred in convicting Manabat of the

crimes charged.

III. RULING:

Yes. In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the
burden of proving these elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or
the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very
corpus delicti of the violation of the law. While it is true that a buy-bust
operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law,
for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, the law nevertheless also
requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that
rights are safeguarded.

In this connection, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the applicable

law at the time of the commission of the alleged crimes, lays down the
procedure that police operatives must follow to maintain the integrity of
the confiscated drugs used as evidence. The provision requires that: (1) the
seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or
confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be
done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel,
(b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a
representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Section 21 of RA 9165 further requires the apprehending team to

conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of
the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. The said inventory
must be done in the presence of the aforementioned required witness, all of
whom shall be 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 photographing of the drugs were
intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of
apprehension.

It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing

Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 allow the inventory and
photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest
police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. In this
connection, this also means that the three required witnesses should
already be physically present at the time of apprehension - a requirement
that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the
buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Verily, a buy-bust
team normally has enough time to gather and bring with it the said
witnesses.

Based from the foregoing, the Court holds that the buy-bust
operation was not conducted in accordance with law.

To reiterate, Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that the copies of the

inventory should be signed by all the following persons: (a) accused or
his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a
representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the
Department of Justice (DOJ).