People 

vs.  OLIVA et.al.

Oliva et. al. ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

FACTS: (AID-SOTG) received a report regarding the sale of dangerous drugs by a certain "Manu" in Barangay Cembo, Makati City and its
nearby areas. As such, a buy-bust operation was planned and after coordination with (PDEA), a buy-bust team was formed wherein (PO3) 
Marcelo was designated as the poseur-buyer and given a P500.00 bill as marked money, and PO1 Darwin Catabay as back-up. Thereafter, the
buy-bust team proceeded to the exact location of "Manu" after it was confirmed by the confidential informant.
Information for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was filed against appellant Oliva
Also, in 3 information, appellants Oliva, Barangot and Manalastas were separately charged with violation of Section 11 of the said law, thus:

ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution has complied with the chain of custody rule required by Section 5, Article 2 of RA 9165 to warrant
conviction.
HELD: The prosecution has not complied with the chain of custody rule, thus appellant must be acquitted.
Under Section 5, Article 2 of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal sale of prohibited drugs, in order to be convicted of the said violation, the following must concur:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the sale transaction actually happened and that "the [procured] object is properly presented as evidence in court and
is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused." 
Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal possession of dangerous drugs the following must be proven before an accused can be
convicted:
[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] such possession was not authorized by law; and [3] the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. 
To ensure an unbroken chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21 (a) of the (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,
that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items[.]
On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165. Among other modifications, it essentially incorporated the saving clause contained in the IRR,
thus: AIDSTE
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of
the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That non-compliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said
items.

Under the original provision of Section 21, after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team was required to immediately
conduct a physically inventory and photograph of the same in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) a representative from the media and (3) the DOJ, and (4) any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is assumed that the presence of these three
persons will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up," i.e., they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination
proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 
VS: the amendatory law mandates that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public
official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof.

Here, the absence of a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media during the inventory of the seized items was not
justifiably explained by the prosecution.
Transcript of Stenographic Notes does not yield any testimony from the arresting officers as to the reason why there was no representative
from the DOJ or the media. The only one present to witness the inventory and the marking was an elected official, Barangay Captain Evelyn
Villamor. Neither was there any testimony to show that any attempt was made to secure the presence of the required witness.
It is the prosecution who bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that, during the proceedings before the trial
court, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. Its failure to follow the
mandated procedure must be adequately explained and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. The rules require
that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with
a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item.  A stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the
quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. 

Augusto Santos III vs Northwest Orient Airlines

Augusto Benedicto Santos III is a minor represented by his dad. In October 1986, he bought a round trip ticket from Northwest Orient Airlines
(NOA) in San Francisco. His flight would be from San Francisco to Manila via Tokyo and back to San Francisco. His scheduled flight was in
December. A day before his departure he checked with NOA and NOA said he made no reservation and that he bought no ticket. The next
year, due to the incident, he sued NOA for damages. He sued NOA in Manila. NOA argued that Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over the
matter pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention, which provides that complaints against international carriers can only be instituted
in:

1. the court of the domicile of the carrier (NOA’s domicile is in the USA);
2. the court of its principal place of business (which is San Francisco, USA);
3. the court where it has a place of business through which the contract had been made (ticket was purchased in San Francisco so that’s
where the contract was made);
4. the court of the place of destination (Santos bought a round trip ticket which final destination is San Francisco).

TC: favored NOA. Santos III averred that Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the case and he questioned the constitutionality of Article 28
(1) of the Warsaw Convention.

ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the matter to conduct judicial review.

HELD: No. They cannot rule over the matter for the SC is bound by the provisions of the Warsaw Convention which was ratified by the Senate.
Until and unless there would be amendments to the Warsaw Convention, the only remedy for Santos III is to sue in any of the places indicated
in the Convention such as in San Francisco, USA.

The SC cannot rule upon the constitutionality of Article 28(1) of the Warsaw Convention. In the first place, it is a treaty which was a joint act by
the legislative and the executive. The presumption is that it was first carefully studied and determined to be constitutional before it was adopted
and given the force of law in this country. In this case, Santos was not able to offer any compelling argument to overcome the presumption.