2009 DRUGS CASES

DATECASESVIOLATIONDOCTRINE

February 10, 2009PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.WILFREDO ENCILA Y SUNGAG.R. No. 182419 Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002In People v. Cueno, the failure to present the marked money in evidence is not indispensable for the conviction of the accused, as long as the sale can be adequately proved in some other way by the prosecution. The production of the marked money recovered from the possession of accused-appellant further strengthened the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that a buy-bust operation was conducted. (359 Phil. 151, 162 (1998))

The defense did not adduce any evidence that could have shown that the policemen deviated from the regular performance of their duty and that could have overcome this presumption. Neither did the defense interpose any evidence to show that said police officers were not performing their duty properly when the buy-bust operation was conducted. When the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation have no motive to falsely testify against the accused, the courts shall uphold the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. (People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 172116, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 280, 288)

And unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular performance of their duties, their testimonies with respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit. (People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 177569, 28 November 2007, 539 SCRA 306, 317)

The presumption in favor of the prosecution witnesses, who are all police officers, taken together with the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution against the accused, should therefore stand.

CONVICTED

February 25, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.RUIZ GARCIA y RUIZG.R. No. 173480 Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. (People v. Jocson, G.R. No. 169875, December 18, 2007, 540 SCRA 585, 592)

In People v. Tan, this Court itself recognized that by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly follow. The prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have been followed in proving the elements of the defined offense. (G.R. No. 133001, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 116, 126-127, citing People v. Gireng, 241 SCRA 11 (1995) and People v. Pagaura, 267 SCRA 17 (1997))

ACQUITTED

April 7, 2009SUSAN SALES Y JIMENA vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 182296 Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165In all prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of violation of the said Act. (People v. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805, April 27, 2004, 428 SCRA 51, 61, citing People v. Mendiola, 235 SCRA 116, 120. See also People of the Philippines v. Salvador Sanchez y Espiritu, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008)

It is thus essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. (Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632)

ACQUITTED

April 24, 2009PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.RUBEN ROBLES y NOVILINIOG.R. No. 177220 Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002The Court notes further that nothing on record shows compliance by the buy-bust team with the procedural requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with respect to custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. There was no physical inventory and photograph of the items allegedly confiscated from appellant. There was likewise no explanation offered for the failure to observe the rule. The failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs raises doubt as to their origins, (Vide People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 758) and negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. (People v. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 489, 505)

ACQUITTED

June 22, 2009PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FREDERICK RICHIE TEODOROG.R. No. 185164 Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002Non-compliance with Section 21 will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In this case, it has been shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. Thus, appellants claim must fail. (People of the Philippines v. Marilyn Naquita, supra note 23; People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 636; People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843)

Apart from his defense that he is a victim of a frame-up and extortion by the police officers, accused-appellant could not present any other viable defense. While the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents should not by itself prevail over the presumption of innocence, for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption of regularity. (People of the Philippines v. Narciso Agulay y Lopez, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008)

In People v. Mateo (People v. Mateo, G.R. No. 179036, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 375, 395) and People v. Larry Lopez (People of the Philippines v. Larry Lopez, G.R. No. 181441, November 14, 2008), the Court held that the period of imprisonment imposed on the accused should not be a straight penalty, but should be an indeterminate penalty.

Drug addiction is one of the most pernicious evils that has ever crept into our society. More often than not, it is the young who are the victims. On the other hand, equally reprehensible is the police practice of using the law as a tool for extorting money from hapless victims. Courts must be vigilant in trying drug charges, lest an innocent person be made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. (People v. Yuan, 466 Phil 791, 807-808 (2004))

CONVICTED

July 23, 2009PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELSIE BARBA y BIAZONG.R. No. 182420

Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165The essential elements in a prosecution for sale of illegal drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. (People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 449; citing People v. Adam, 459 Phil. 676, 684 (2003))

The prohibited drug is an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime of possession or selling of regulated/prohibited drug; proof of its identity, existence, and presentation in court are crucial. (People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194).

A conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. (People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009)

The identity of the subject substance is established by showing the chain of custody. In Espinoza v. State, an adequate foundation establishing a continuous chain of custody is said to have been established if the State accounts for the evidence at each stage from its acquisition to its testing, and to its introduction at trial. (859 N.E.2d 375, December 27, 2006)

In a prosecution for sale of illegal drugs, this foundation takes more significance because of the nature of the evidence involved. (Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 633)

The more fungible the evidence, the more significant its condition, or the higher its susceptibility to change, the more elaborate the foundation must be. In those circumstances, it must be shown that there has been no tampering, alteration, or substitution. (23 C.J.S. Criminal Law 1142)

In Malillin v. People, we laid down the chain of custody requirements that must be met in proving that the seized drugs are the same ones presented in court: (1) testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence; and (2) witnesses should describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the item. In People v. Sanchez, the accused was acquitted since the prosecution did not make known the identities of the police officers to whom custody of the seized drugs was entrusted after the buy-bust operation. Likewise absent from the evidence is any testimony on the whereabouts of the drugs after they were analyzed by the forensic chemist. In People v. Garcia, the conviction was overturned due in part to the failure of the state to show who delivered the drugs to the forensic laboratory and who had custody of them after their examination by the forensic chemist and pending their presentation in court. (G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009) In People v. Cervantes, a total of five (5) links in the chain of custody were not presented in court: the desk officer who received the drugs at the police station; the unnamed person who delivered the drugs to the forensic laboratory; the recipient of the drugs at the forensic laboratory; the forensic chemist who did the examination of the drugs; and the person who acted as custodian of the drugs after their analysis. Although the non-presentation of some of the witnesses who can attest to an unbroken chain of evidence may in some instances be excused, there should be a justifying factor for the prosecution to dispense with their testimonies.

ACQUITTED

August 14, 2009PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.MARIAN CORECHE y CABERG.R. No. 182528 Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, the doctrinal fallback of every drug-related prosecution. Thus, in People v. Laxa and People v. Casimiro, we held that the failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. These rulings are refinements of our holdings in People v. Mapa and People v. Dismuke that doubts on the authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by the prosecutions failure to prove that the evidence submitted for chemical analysis is the same as the one seized from the accused suffice to warrant acquittal on reasonable doubt.

In sustaining the prosecutions case, the lower courts inevitably relied on the evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. This presumption, it must be emphasized, is not conclusive. Not only is it rebutted by contrary proof, as here, but it is also inferior (People v. Caete, 433 Phil. 781 (2002)) to the constitutional presumption of innocence.

All told, the Supreme Court finds merit in appellants claim that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving her guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to substantial gaps in the chain of custody, raising reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.

ACQUITTED

August 27, 2009PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.RANDY MAGBANUA aliasBOYUNG and WILSON MAGBANUA Violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6425Under this Section, the mere possession of any prohibited drug consummates the crime. The charge of illegal possession of marijuana was proven beyond reasonable doubt as it was found at the back seat of the car with accused-appellants, without legal authority. The four (4) bricks of dried suspected marijuana found in the accused-appellants possession, upon laboratory examination, were positively identified as marijuana, a prohibited drug. As long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, the failure to issue a receipt will not render the items seized/confiscated inadmissible as evidence. As held by the Court in People v. Alvin Pringas, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Here, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the items involved were safeguarded. The seized drugs were immediately marked for proper identification. Thereafter, they were forwarded to the Crime Laboratory for examination. Well-settled is the rule that prosecutions involving the possession of illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officer. This Court has access only to the cold and impersonal records of the proceedings. Thus, the Court relies heavily on the rule that the weighing of evidence, particularly when there are conflicts in the testimonies of witnesses, is best left to the trial court which had the unique opportunity to observe their demeanor, conduct, and manner while testifying. Hence, its factual findings are accorded respect, even finality, absent any showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied. (People v. Chen Tiz Chang and Cheng Jung San a.k.a. Willy Tan, G.R. Nos. 131872-73, February 17, 2000, 325 SCRA 776, 778)CONVICTED

September 4, 2009GILBERT ZALAMEDA vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 183656 Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002The settled rule is that the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely corroborative and cumulative. (See People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 172369, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 749) Moreover, informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identities and preserve their invaluable service to the police. (See Dimacuha v. People, G.R. No. 143705, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 513)

Thus, we held in People v. Boco: (G.R. No. 129676, June 23, 1999, 309 SCRA 42) Under the circumstances, we do not find any necessity for additional corroborating testimony, particularly that of the confidential informant. Intelligence agents, due to the nature of their work, are often not called to testify in court so as not to reveal their identities publicly. Once known, they could no longer be used again and, worse, may be the object of revenge by the criminals they implicate. The prevailing doctrine is that their testimonies are not essential for conviction, nor are they indispensable to a successful prosecution. With the testimonies of the arresting officers, they would be, after all, merely corroborative and cumulative.

CONVICTED

October 2, 2009PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.ROSEMARIE R. SALONGA Violation of Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002While a lone witness testimony is sufficient to convict an accused, it must be credible and believable, qualities we cannot ascribe to this case. Major lapses were not explained, raising doubts as to the preservation of the integrity of the evidence. The varying reasons the prosecution proffered as to why there was a departure from the procedure found in RA 9165 do not, to our mind, justify the buy-bust teams non-compliance. We are not ready to affirm a conviction in the face of such flimsy and contradictory excuses for why the evidence was improperly handled. As this Court recently observed in People v. Robles (G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009), the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs raises doubt as to their origins, and negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. To emphasize the importance of the corpus delicti in drug charges, we have held that it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. (Sales v. People, G.R. No. 182296, April 7, 2009) This requirement is found wanting in this case. With the buy-bust teams unwarranted non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure, we are unable to say with certainty that the identity of the seized drugs is intact and its evidentiary value undiminished. For this reason, we find that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The weakness of accused-appellants defense is no longer material as the prosecution was not able to overcome the presumption of innocence accused-appellant enjoys.

ACQUITTED

October 2, 2009PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.LEONARD L. BERNARDINO alias ONAT Violation of 15 and 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. In this case, the drugs were found inside his clothing. No evidence was ever adduced showing that the accused-appellant had authority to possess these regulated drugs. Lastly, the surrounding circumstances indicate the accused-appellants knowledge of the drugs in his possession. Knowledge, being an internal act, may be presumed from the failure of the accused to explain why the drug was in a place over which the accused exercised dominion and control. In this case, such explanation was glaringly lacking. The only explanation offered police frame-up is, as discussed, a discredited one. Hence, knowing possession of the shabu by the accused-appellant is presumed under the circumstances. (People v. Tira, G.R. No. 139615, May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 134)

CONVICTED

October 16, 2009PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.ALFREDO LAZARO, JR. a.k.a JUN LAZARO y AQUINO, Violation of Sections 5, 11, and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002Not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such a requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand. (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 184804, 18 June 2009)

In People v. Zeng Hua Dian, (G.R. No. 145348, 14 June 2004, 432 SCRA 25, 32) the Supreme Court ruled: After a thorough review of the records of this case, we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.

CONVICTED

December 16, 2009PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.DANILO CRUZ y CULALAG.R. No. 185381 Denial and frame-up as defenses are inherently weak and have always been viewed by the Court with disfavor, for they can easily be invented and these are common defenses in most prosecutions for violations of RA 9165. (People v. Dulay, G.R. No. 150624, February 24, 2004, 423 SCRA 652, 662) Thus, in order for the Court to appreciate these defenses, there must be such clear and convincing evidence to prove such defenses; otherwise, in the absence of any ill motive on the part of the police authorities to falsely impute such crime against appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty stands. There is no denying the fact that dealing in illegal drugs has brought untold miseries to many members of our society. It has caused tremendous sufferings and difficulties not only to drug users but to their families as well. It has ruined the future of the youths who have succumbed to its promise of momentary bliss only to lose opportunities to lead meaningful and productive lives later. In fighting the drug menace in our midst, we should not be hindered by technicalities that those engaged in the trade claim were committed by authorities in curtailing their activities. The ill effects of their trade far outweigh any consideration police officers may have in trying to put a stop to its spread.

CONVICTED

2010 DRUGS CASES

DATECASESVIOLATIONDOCTRINE

January 22, 2010JULIUS CACAO y PRIETO vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No. 180870 Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)It must be stressed that the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the drug itself. This means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential. (People v. Quebral, G.R. No. 185379, November 27, 2009)

Likewise, our ruling in People v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 177777, December 4, 2009) on chain of custody rule is instructive. Thus: As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires the presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would ideally cover the testimony about every link in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered to the next in the chain.

ACQUITTED

January 25, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.RODANTE DE LEON y DELA ROSAG.R. No. 186471 Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002Here, appellant was caught in actual possession of the prohibited drugs without showing any proof that he was duly authorized by law to possess them. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facie evidence of animus possidendi on appellants part. As held by this Court, the finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the premises of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. (U.S. v. Bandoc, 23 Phil. 14, 15 (1912)) In the case at bar, appellant failed to present any evidence to rebut his animus possidendi of the shabu found in his pocket during the buy-bust operation.

CONVICTED

February 9, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.FERNANDO VILLAMIN Y SAN JOSE ALIAS ANDOY Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. It is a fundamental rule that findings of the trial courts, which are factual in nature and which involve credibility, are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals. (People v. Saidamen Macatingag) Accused-appellant, during his testimony and in his Appellant's Brief, merely denied the charge against him. According to him, he was just having breakfast when the members of the buy-bust team suddenly barged inside the house and arrested him. Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellants plain denial of the offenses charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail. Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by this Court, because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. Moreover, it is a common and standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. Unfortunately, the accused-appellant miserably failed to present any evidence that the members of the buy-bust operation team did not properly perform their duty, or that the entire operation was coupled with any improper motive. (People v. del Monte, G. R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627) As an added argument, the accused-appellant questions the legality of his arrest. He claims that he was not given the opportunity to know the reason for his arrest, and that the arresting officers were not armed with any warrant for arrest. This Court, however, finds the said argument to be preposterous. It must be remembered that the accused-appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation, the main goal of which was to catch him in flagrante selling shabu, and from the evidence for the prosecution, he was arrested while committing a crime -- peddling of illegal drugs, a circumstance where warrantless arrest is justified under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court.

CONVICTED

March 5, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.FERNANDO HABANA y ORANTEG.R. No. 188900 Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002The chain of custody rule requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. While this Court recognizes substantial adherence to the requirements of R.A. 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations, not perfect adherence, is what is demanded of police officers attending to drugs cases, still, such officers must present justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. Here, however, they failed to meet these conditions. The police officers offered no explanation for their failure to observe the chain of custody rule. (People v. Ara, G.R. No. 185011, December 23, 2009) The prosecution failed to show how the seized items changed hands, from when the police officers seized them from Habana to the time they were presented in court as evidence. PO1 Paras said that he turned over the sachets of shabu to the investigator on duty. But the prosecution did not adduce evidence on what the investigator on duty did with the seized articles, how these got to the laboratory technician, and how they were kept before being adduced in evidence at the trial. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory. If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and seal the same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a new seal since the police officers seal has been broken. At the trial, the technician can then describe the sealed condition of the plastic container when it was handed to him and testify on the procedure he took afterwards to preserve its integrity. If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly ones possession has been. Each of them has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his care. Since the failure in this case to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs compromised the identity and integrity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against Habana, his acquittal is in order

May 14, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.NORMAN SITCO and RAYMUNDO BAGTAS (deceased)G.R. No. 178202 Violation of Sections 15 and 16 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6425 or The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972

Although the non-presentation of some of the witnesses who can attest to an unbroken chain of custody of evidence may, in some instances, be excused, there should be a justifying factor for the prosecution to dispense with their testimonies. (People v. Barba, G.R. No. 182420, July 23, 2009, 593 SCRA 711, 719; citing People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762) In People v. Denoman, (G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257) the Court discussed the saving mechanism provided by Sec. 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. Denoman explains that the aforementioned provision contains a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of non-compliance will permanently prejudice the prosecutions case. The saving mechanism applies when the prosecution recognizes and explains the lapse or lapses in the prescribed procedures. (People v. Denoman, supra note 28, at 270) In this case, the prosecution did not even acknowledge and discuss the reasons for the missing links in the chain. To reiterate, in prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the substance itself constitutes the key part of the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. (Catuiran v. People, G.R. No. 175647, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 567) Taken with the uncorroborated testimony of Buan, the broken chain of custody over the marijuana and shabu in the instant case creates reasonable doubt on accused-appellants guilt. In a string of cases, we declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before it was finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused. As in People v. Partoza, this case suffers from the failure of the prosecution witness to provide the details establishing an unbroken chain of custody. In Partoza, the police officer testifying did not relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over. The evidence of the prosecution likewise did not disclose the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending presentation in court. (G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 809) ACQUITTED

June 16, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BELEN MARIACOSG.R. No. 188611 Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002It is admitted that there were no photographs taken of the drugs seized, that appellant was not accompanied by counsel, and that no representative from the media and the DOJ were present. However, this Court has already previously held that non-compliance with Section 21 is not fatal and will not render an accuseds arrest illegal, or make the items seized inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. (People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876, June 27, 2008, 556 SCRA 421, 436-437, citing People v. Del Monte, 552 SCRA 627 (2008))

While it is true that the arresting officer failed to state explicitly the justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21, this does not necessarily mean that appellants arrest was illegal or that the items seized are inadmissible. The justifiable ground will remain unknown because appellant did not question the custody and disposition of the items taken from her during the trial. (See People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828; People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621, 633)

Even assuming that the police officers failed to abide by Section 21, appellant should have raised this issue before the trial court. She could have moved for the quashal of the information at the first instance. But she did not. Hence, she is deemed to have waived any objection on the matter.

Further, the actions of the police officers, in relation to the procedural rules on the chain of custody, enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions. Courts accord credence and full faith to the testimonies of police authorities, as they are presumed to be performing their duties regularly, absent any convincing proof to the contrary. (People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 175326, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 198, 223)

CONVICTED

July 6, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.NOEL CATENTAYG.R. No. 183101 Violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002In this case, although the plastic sachets that the forensic chemist received were heat-sealed and authenticated by the police officer with his personal markings, the forensic chemist broke the seal, opened the plastic sachet, and took out some of the substances for chemical analysis. No evidence had been adduced to show that the forensic chemist properly closed and resealed the plastic sachets with adhesive and placed his own markings on the resealed plastic to preserve the integrity of their contents until they were brought to court. Nor was any stipulation made to this effect. The plastic sachets apparently showed up at the pre-trial, not bearing the forensic chemists seal, and was brought from the crime laboratory by someone who did not care to testify how he came to be in possession of the same. The evidence did not establish the unbroken chain of custody.

ACQUITTED

August 12, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.FELIMON PAGADUAN y TAMAYOG.R. No. 179029 Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165The Supreme Court is not unmindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our society; they are lingering maladies that destroy families and relationships, and engender crimes. The Court is one with all the agencies concerned in pursuing an intensive and unrelenting campaign against this social dilemma. Regardless of how much we want to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the protection provided by the Constitution, most particularly the presumption of innocence bestowed on the appellant. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome this constitutional presumption. If the prosecution has not proved, in the first place, all the elements of the crime charged, which in this case is the corpus delicti, then the appellant deserves no less than an acquittal.

August 25, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.FEDERICO CAMPOS y RANILEG.R. No. 186526 Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165People v. Bernardino where the accused was convicted of illegal possession but acquitted of illegal sale of shabu due to doubts as to the chain of custody is not on four squares with the present case. In said case, while the forensic chemist duly identified the shabu she examined and testified on the results thereof, her testimony merely referred to the specimens submitted by the apprehending officer, hence, the conclusion that no clear specific link exists between the examined specimen and the shabu allegedly sold at the buy-bust except by inference, for there was no segregation of which sachets of shabu submitted were for the charge of illegal sale or for the charge of illegal possession. The factual milieu in Bernardino thus differs from that of the present case, there being no question that there was only one plastic sachet of shabu confiscated from appellant to give rise to confusion during its laboratory examination and presentation in evidence. (G.R. No. 171088, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 270)

Appellants defense of frame-up fails. For, like alibi, it can easily be concocted, hence, it must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. This appellant failed to discharge. (Vide People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571)

CONVICTED

September 15, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNEL BABANGGOL y MACAPIA,CESAR NARANJO y RIVERA andEDWIN SAN JOSE y TABING,G.R. No. 181422 Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165A persons mere presence when an illegal transaction had taken place does not mean that he was into the conspiracy. To be guilty as a conspirator, the accused needs to have done an overt act in pursuit of the crime. (Aquino v. Paiste, G.R. No. 147782, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 255, 272; Cajigas v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 156541, February 23, 2009, 580 SCRA 54, 67) While the testimonies of the three other accused were inconsistent in some material points, they all agreed that Naranjo was a mere hired driver. The prosecution did not bother to contradict this. It presented no proof that Naranjo knew of the criminal intentions of the other accused, much less that he adopted the same. All told, nothing in the circumstances of this case can be used to infer that Naranjo was in conspiracy with the other accused.

ACQUITTED - Naranjo

October 6, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. OLIVE RUBIO MAMARILG.R. No. 171980 Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002There is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination of probable cause since the same must be decided in light of the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence depends to a large degree upon the findings or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. (Lastrilla v. Granda, G.R. No. 160257, 31 January 2006, 481 SCRA 324, 347) It is presumed that a judicial function has been regularly performed, absent a showing to the contrary. A magistrates determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid with great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that determination. (People v. Choi, G.R. No. 152950, 3 August 2006, 497 SCRA 547, 556) The defenses reliance of the quoted testimony of the police officer alone, without any other evidence to show that there was indeed lack of personal knowledge, is insufficient to overturn the finding of the trial court. The accused-appellant, having failed to present substantial rebuttal evidence to defeat the presumption of regularity of duty of the issuing judge, will not be sustained by the Supreme Court.

ACQUITTED

October 20, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTONIO MAGPAYOG.R. No. 187069 Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165Clearly, there was a break in the chain of custody of the seized substances. The failure of the prosecution to establish the evidences chain of custody is fatal to its case. Under no circumstance can we consider or even safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug was properly preserved by the apprehending officers. There can be no crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drugs. (People v. Suan, G.R. No. 184546, 22 February 2010 citing Valdez v. People, G.R. No. 170180, 23 November 2007, 538 SCRA 611.)

ACQUITTED

October 20, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLANDO ARANETA y ABELLA @ BOTONG and MARILOU SANTOS y TANTAY @ MALOUG.R. No. 191064 Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002The Supreme Court points out the defenses failure to contest the admissibility of the seized items as evidence during trial as this was the initial point in objecting to illegally seized evidence. At the trial, the seized shabu was duly marked, made the subject of examination and cross-examination, and eventually offered as evidence, yet at no instance did the appellant manifest or even hint that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value. In People v. Hernandez, we held that objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. (People of the Philippines v. Sitti Domado, G.R. No. 172971, June 16, 2010)

CONVICTED

November 15, 2010PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES vs MARIO VILLANUEVA BAGAG.R. No. 189844 Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002Even though non-compliance with Sec. 21 of the IRR may be excused, such cannot be relied upon when there is lack of any acceptable justification for failure to do so. The Court, citing People v. Sanchez, explained that the saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds. (G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194)

In this case, the prosecution provided no explanation as to why there was a contradiction as to the markings on the confiscated drugs. This is similar to what happened in Zarraga v. People, where the Court held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. (G.R. No. 162064, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 639, 647-648; cited in People v. Lorenzo, supra).

It behooves this Court not to blindingly accept the testimony of a lone witness, as we ruled: When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right. (Malillin v. People, supra note 13, at 639)

ACQUITTED

November 15, 2010PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES vs SULPICIO SONNY BOY TAN y PHUAG.R. No. 191069 Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.Here, the arresting officers had sufficient probable cause to make the arrest in view of the fact that they themselves heard accused-appellant say, Hey Joe, want to buy Valium 10, Cialis, Viagra? which, in turn, prompted them to ask accused-appellant what he was selling. When accused-appellant showed them the items, they identified 120 tablets of Valium 10, a regulated drug. The police officers then became obligated to arrest accused-appellant, as he was actually committing a crime in their presencepossession of a dangerous drug, a violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165. Therefore, it is without question that the warrantless search and arrest of accused-appellant are legal and valid.

CONVICTED

December 13, 2010PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES vs. ARNOLD MARTINEZ et alG.R. No. 191366 Violation of Section 13, in relation to Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or MeetingsNon-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, provided that (i) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

Let it be stressed that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not affect the admissibility of the evidence but only its weight. (People v. Del Monte, G.R. No.179940,April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 637).

When challenged by the evidence of a flawed chain of custody, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence of the accused. (People v. Peralta, G.R. No. 173477, February 26, 2010)

The practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in the form of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it would be more in keeping with the intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use, provided that there is a positive confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15. The minimum penalty under the last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of residue is imprisonment of twelve years and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of drug use is a minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government center. To file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity to recover for a second chance at life.

The presence of dangerous drugs was only in the form of residue on the drug paraphernalia, and the accused were found positive for use of dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence obtained admissible, and the chain of custody intact, the law enforcers should have filed charges under Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs and, if there was no residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec. 14 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the maximum penalty under Sec. 12 (Possession of Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) shall be imposed on any person who shall possess any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. Under Sec. 12, the maximum penalty is imprisonment of four years and a fine of P50,000.00. In fact, under the same section, the possession of such equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facie evidence that the possessor has used a dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Sec. 15.

In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users, this Court thus calls on law enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the presence of dangerous drugs is only and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory test required under Sec. 15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs. In such cases, to afford the accused a chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving possession of dangerous drugs should only be done when another separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere residue, is found in the possession of the accused as provided for in Sec. 15.

ACQUITTED

December 15, 2010PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EFREN DITONA et alG.R. NO. 18984

Selling and possessing illegal drugs Violation of the Omnibus Election Code Illegal possession of firearmsThe State has to prove as well the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. (People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 356).

It must be shown that the suspected substance the police officers seized from the accused is the same thing presented in court during the trial. Thus, the chain of custody rule is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. (People of the Philippines v. Sitco, G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010; see also People of the Philippines v. Nandi, G.R. No. 188905, July 13, 2010)

The witnesses should be able to describe these movements to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and that no one who did not belong in the chain had access to the same. (Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633)

There is no room to apply the presumption of regularity in the police officers performance of official duty. While the testimonies of the police officers who apprehended the accused are generally accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly, such presumption is effectively destroyed where the performance of their duties is tainted with failure to comply with the prescribed procedure and guidelines. (People of the Philippines v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010.)

The drug enforcement agencies of the government and the prosecution should put their acts together to ensure that the guilty are punished and the innocent absolved. Poor handling and preservation of the integrity of evidence show lack of professionalism and waste the time that the courts could use for hearing and adjudicating other cases. Prosecutors ought not to file drugs cases in court unless the law enforcement agencies are able to show documented compliance with every requirement of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Likewise prosecutors ought to have a checklist of the questions they should ask their witnesses in drugs cases that would elicit the required proof.

ACQUITTED Selling and possessing illegal drugs CONVICTED Violation of the Omnibus Election Code

http://attylaserna.blogspot.com/2013/03/february-2013-philippine-supreme-court.html