Drug Cases

8/17/2019 Drug Cases

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/drug-cases 1/25

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN

FACTS: This is an appeal filed by herein accused Joel Clara y Buhain (Joel) from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (Caffirming the decision of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Queon City tor violation of !ection "# Articleof the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act virtuala% l(&' Ramos) narrated that he acted as a poseurbuyer in a buybust operation conducted by their office# the District An$llegal Drug !pecial Tas* +roup (DA$D!,T+) of Queon City on -. !eptember .''"/$nside the courtroom# &, Ramos identified Joel as the one involved in the illegal transaction/ 0e also identified the smplastic sachet of shabu as the sub1ect of the illegal transaction through the mar*ing he placed on it/ 0e testified that hebrought the plastic sachet containing the specimen to the crime laboratory for e2amination %here it %as tested positive

methamphetamine hydrochloride# as certified by the e2amining 3orensic Chemist 4ngr/ 5eonard 6/ Jabonillo (3orensicChemist Jabonillo) of Central &olice District Crime 5aboratory in his Chemistry Report/ library0o%ever# during the trial# inconsistencies and contradictions %ere made by each of the police officers %ho presented incourt as prosecution %itnesses as they narrated the details of the buybust operation/

Accused Joel denied any involvement in the buybust operation/ ,n cross e2amination# Joel %as also inconsistent inportions of his testimony/ library

Joel %as eventually charged %ith $llegal !ale of Dangerous Drugs and %as found guilty of the offense charged because accused directly dealt %ith the poseur buyer and participated in all the stages of the illegal sale/CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court/

ISSUE: 7,8 the conviction of the accused is valid

HELD: NO! $nspite of the imperfect narration of events by the accused Joel# %e are constrained to render a 1udgment oac9uittal due to the lapses of the prosecution that led to its failure to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonabledoubt that the accused committed the crime/

$n order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs# li*e shabu# the follo%ing elements mustfirst be established: (-) the identity of the buyer and the seller# the ob1ect and consideration of the sale; and (.) thedelivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor/

$t is basic in criminal prosecutions that an accused is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is provebeyond reasonable doubt/ The prosecution has the burden to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting th9uantum of evidence re9uired/

CASTRO vs. People

VELASCO, JR., J.:

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, accused-appellant Cesar D. Castro (Castro) assails the Januar !, "#$# Decision %$& o

Court of 'ppeals (C') in C'-.R. CR o. *$+*, as effectivel reiterated in its 'uust $#, "#$# Resolution, %"& which affired in toto the Jul $$, "

Decision%*& of the Reional 0rial Court (R0C), 1ranch $! in 2aoa Cit, in Criinal Case o. $#+/4-$!. 0he R0C found Castro uilt of violatin 3

$$, 'rt. II of Repulic 'ct o. (R') $!5 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Castro was chared with possession of shabu in an Inforation dated Jul "!, "##*, the inculpator portion of which reads

0hat on or aout the "5 th da of Jul "##* in the Cit of 2aoa, Philippines, and within the 6urisdiction of this 7onoraleCourt, the herein accused did then and there willfull, unlawfull and feloniousl have in his possession, control and custod,

8ethaphetaine 7drochloride, locall 9nown as shau, a danerous dru, contained in one ($) plastic sachet, weihin ore or

less #.$ ra includin the plastic sachet, without an license or authorit, in violation of the aforecited law.

C:0R'R; 0: 2'<.%4&

<hen arrained, Castro pleaded not uilt to the offense chared.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/august2011/193379.htm#_ftn4














't the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense 6ointl stipulated as to the identit of the accused, such that whenever the na

Cesar Castro is entioned, the reference is to the accused thus chared in the inforation. 0he li9ewise stipulated on the issue of whether or not

accused, when arrested on Jul "5, "##*, was in possession of shabu and, if so, whether he was authori=ed.

0rial on the erits then ensued.

0he trial court suari=ed the states evidence, as follows

P:$ J:>2 8''PI0 testified that :n Jul "5, "##*, he was assined in the Intellience and :peration 3ection of 2aoa Cit

Police 3tation at 1arana I, 2aoa Cit. 't aout 445, 3P:" estor ?elipe infored the that he received a phone call fro aconcerned citi=en that a ale person wearin reen t-shirt and rown aon ouht shau near the Ilesia i Cristo. Police

3uperintendent Padilao dispatched a tea of police officers coposed of P:$ Inspector 'ldos, 3P:* 2aundino, 3P:" 1al and

hiself to verif the veracit of the report. 0he rode on the lac9 0oota Corolla and proceeded to the place. (0he Ilesia i @risto isfarther west of the Police station of 2aoa Cit at 1r. I, alon Ri=al 3treet). Apon reachin the Ilesia i Cristo church, the saw a

ale person with the reen description. 0he 9now his person as one of the dru personalities. 7e was wal9in towards the east with

his riht hand placed on his poc9et. 0he were aout ten ($#) eters awa fro the accused. 0he approached hi. 0he accused panicupon reconi=in the as policeen and rouht soethin %out& fro his poc9et and threw it at his ac9. 0he thins thrown the

accused were plastic sachets of shau, lihter and a coin. 0he arrested the accused and he was infored of his constitutional rihts.

7e could not answer when he was as9ed whether or not he had authorit to possess illeal dru. 0he rouht the accused to the police station and he was indorsed to Investiation 3ection. 0he plastic sachet of shau was turned over to the >vidence Custodian,

3P:" 2oreto 'ncheta. B B B Police :fficers 'ldos and 1al also saw the accused threw soethin in the anner he descried. It was3P:" 1al who pic9ed up the plastic sachet of shau. 0he accused was facin east and their vehicle was facin west. 0he accused was

wal9in. 7e too9 hold of the accused. 0he thin that was thrown was $ eter awa fro the ac9 of the accused. ?ro his eBperience

he 9new that the content of the plastic sachet thrown the accused was shau. (03 'pril $*, "##4, pp. "-$#) :n additional

eBaination, he confired that he saw the accused a9in a otion of rinin out fro his front pants poc9et his hands causin thedroppin of an ite. 7e li9ewise confired that the ite dropped was a sachet of shau and it is the sae ite that was pic9ed up

3P:" 1al. 7e received the sachet of shau fro :fficer 1al and turned over the sae to the evidence custodian five to ten inutesafter the operation. 3P:* 2aundino and 3enior Insp. 'ldos were present when :fficer 1al turned over the shau to hi. 7e cannot

reeer if there was a Post :peration Report. (03, Januar $*, "##!, pp. $*-$+)

3P:" >R>30: 1'2 testified that In the afternoon of Jul "5, "##*, the coplaint des9 officer received a telephone call inforin

that a ale person wearin a reen t-shirt and a rown aon pants had 6ust ouht a shau at 1r. I near the Ilesia i Cristo. 0heChief of Police B B B dispatched the to verif the inforation. 0he rode in an unar9ed vehicle B B B. <hen the were at the Ri=al

3treet, the saw a ale person that atched the description iven coin fro the house of the aleriano fail which is southwest

of Ilesia i Cristo. ?ro a distance of aout ten ($#) to twelve ($") eters, the saw the ale person place his riht hand into hisriht side poc9et. <hen the ot near the ale person, the noticed hi reovin his riht hand fro his poc9et and he threw

soethin ac9ward. 0he were ore or less four (4) eters awa fro the accused. P:$ 8anapit alihted and too9 hold of the

accused. 7e also alihted, went to P:$ 8anapit who told hi to pic9-up the thin which the accused threw. 7e pic9ed-up a plasticsachet which contained white crstalline sustance. 7e as9ed the accused if he has license or perit to possess shau. 'ccused Cesar

Castro did not answer. 0he rouht the accused toether with the plastic sachet to the police station and the delivered the plasticsachet with crstalline sustance to the evidence custodian. (03, Deceer ", "##4, pp. "-+) :n cross eBaination, %he stated that& BB B <hen he pic9ed up the plastic sachet it was ore or less half-eter fro the accused. 7e heard P:$ 8anapit infor the accused

of his constitutional rihts. (iid, pp. $$-"4) 0he distance etween the police station and the Ilesia i Cristo is ore or less "##

eters. (03, 8arch $+, "##!, p. 5) B B B 7e (the witness) did not ar9 the shau. It was onl the evidence custodian who ar9ed it.(iid, p. $!)

3P:" 2:R>0: 'C7>0', evidence custodian of the 2aoa Cit, PP testified that In the afternoon of Jul "5, "##*, he received

one ($) plastic sachet containin crstalline sustance fro :fficer >rnesto 1al. Apon receipt of the specien, he placed ar9ins on

the sachet of the crstalline sustance. 7e prepared a reuest addressed to Chief of 7ospital of the 2aoa Cit eneral7ospital for phsical and ocular eBaination of the specien. 0he reuest was sined PE3upt. Joel Padilao. 7e delivered the reuest and the

specien to Dr. >lie=er John 'suncion and waited for the result of the phsical and ocular eBaination. Apon receipt of the result of

the eBaination, he went ac9 to the office and prepared another reuest for laorator eBaination addressed to the Reional Chief Cheist PP Crie 2aorator 3ervice, Cap 1riidier eneral :scar ?lorendo Parian, 3an ?ernando, 2a Anion. 0his was sined

PEInsp. Doinic uerrero. 7e rouht the specien and the letter reuest to the PP Crie 2aorator, Cap Juan, 2aoa Cit. Itwas received PEInsp. aleriano Pane 2aa II. (03, June "5, "##4, pp. $#-$!)

PEI3P. '2>RI': P'>8 2';' II, testified that 's a ?orensic :fficer, B B B he also holds office at the PP Crie

2aorator, Cap Juan, 2aoa Cit. 7e reeered havin received a specien for eBaination with respect to a case aainst Cesar Castro fro :fficer 2oreto 'ncheta (<hen he was as9ed where the specien was, he handed to the prosecutor the plastic sachet

ar9ed as >Bhiit D). B B B 0he result of his eBaination was that the specien was positive for the presence of %shau&. 0his iscontained in his Cheistr Report D-*"+-#*. >Bhiit > (03, ?eruar $/, "##5, pp. $#-$") :n cross eBaination he testified that

he weihed the specien at 3an ?ernando, 2a Anion. 0he weiht was .#/ ra and was indicated in his Report. 7e did not weih the

representative saple. (iid, p. ")%5&





0he defense presented in evidence the testionies of accused Castro and one Rodolfo 1unnao. 0he R0C also suari=ed the, as

follows

C>3'R C'30R: B B B testified that In the afternoon of Jul "5, "##*, he was at the house of Crispin aleriano to as9 for the paent of his det. 1ecause Crispin aleriano has no one, he went hoe ta9in the southward direction to the national road west

of the Ilesia i Cristo. 7e was aout to cross towards the other side of the road when a car suddenl stopped in front of hi and a

policean in the person of >rnesto 1al alihted B B B. >rnesto 1al called for hi and when he went near hi >rnesto 1al iediatelsearched his two (") front poc9ets and B B B his ac9 poc9ets ut was not ale to et anthin. 7e as9ed >rnest 1al wh B B B. 1al told

hi that soeod called the tellin the that he went to the house of Crispin aleriano to u shau. 'fter he was searched he was

invited :fficer 1al to the police station to a9e a stateent B B B. 7e voluntaril went with the B B B. :fficer 8anapit went outfro the riht side of the car and went ehind hi. <hen he alihted fro the car, :fficer 8anapit as9ed hi, <hat is thisF (holdin

soethin placed in a plastic) to which he answered, I dont 9now. <hile inside their office, the undressed hi and eBained

thorouhl even the sleeves of his shirt as well as his pants. 7e claied that the plastic is inside and loner when >Bhiit D wasshown to hi and that the sae was $E* inch wider and loner. 'fter he was dressed-up, the placed hi at the prison cell, where he

resisted. 7e did not see were P: 8anapit too9 the plastic sachet ut the latter insisted that he too9 it fro the seat where he wasseated. :n cross eBaination, he testified that Police :fficers 1al and 8anapit were failiar to hi B B B. 'fter the police officers

conducted the investiation and chared hi of possession of shau, the rouht hi to the :ffice of 8aor Roer ?arias, a close

relative of hi. 0he policeen did not prepare an docuent statin that the did not hurt hi and nothin was lost. 7e did not protest when the told hi to strip. (03, 'uust "4, "##+, pp. *-$4)

R:D:2?: 1A': testified that 'fter eatin at the 9itchenette and went out, he saw Cesar Castro west of the Ilesia i Cristostandin when all of the sudden, a lac9 car stopped and two (") en alihted fro the car, went near Cesar Castro and odil

searched hi. 7e 9new the accused B B B. 'out one ($) inute after the search, the rouht hi inside the car proceedin west. B B

B :n cross eBaination %he stated that& B B B %o&n Jul "5, "##*, there was a coc9fiht in 2aoa Cit B B B. 7e too9 his lunch at the8odern @itchenette after he orrowed coc9fiht one fro 8arcial 1aracao east of the 3I3. 8odern @itchenette is further west

fro the ost western fence of the Ilesia i Cristo. 0wo (") en alihted fro the lac9 car one is the driver and the other one fro

the passeners side. 7e 9new for a fact that there is another an inside the car who he does not 9now B B B. (03, ?eruar $5,

"##/, pp. *-!)%!&

:n the ain findin that the corpus delicti has een estalished the open court narrations of the Peoples witnesses and whose testi

espo9e of an unro9en chain of custod, the R0C, in its Decision of Jul $$, "##/, found Castro uilt eond reasonale dout of the crie char

disposin as follows

<7>R>?:R>, preises considered, and after weihin carefull the evidence presented the prosecution and the

defense, the Court finds the accused AI20; eond reasonale dout of the crie chared. Considerin that the weiht of theethaphetaine hdrochloride is less than 5 ras, he is here sentenced to the penalt of 0<>2> ($") ;>'R3 and :> ($)

D'; as iniu to 0<>0; ("#) ;>'R3 as aBiu and a fine of 07R>> 7ADR>D 07:A3'D P>3:3 (P*##,###.##) in

accordance with 3ection $$ of R.'. $!5.

3: :RD>R>D.%+&

Castro appealed to the C'. ?ollowin the suission of the 'ppellants 1rief, %/& the 'ppellees 1rief ,%& and Repl 1rief of 'ccused-'ppel

%$#& the C' rendered 6udent disissin the appeal. Castro later oved for, ut was denied, reconsideration.

0he C' rushed aside Castros threshold defense line that he did not have, when arrested, possession and custod of prohiited dru, the co

statin in this reard that illeal dru possession under the law includes oth actual and constructive possessions. Citin the testion of Police :ffic

(P:$) 8anapit, as corroorated that of 3enior Police :fficer " (3P:") 1al, the C' also declared that Castro, his prior and conteporaneous a

had actual and constructive possession of, or, in fine, had the intent to possess, the sei=ed plastic sachet containin shabu, for the plastic sachet in ues

was initiall in Castros pants poc9et ut which he tossed to the round upon reali=in that the ones aout to accost hi were police officers.

'nent alleations of non-copliance the police officers of the reuireents under 3ec. "$ of R' $!5 %$$& on inventor and photoraphin

the sei=ed shabu, the C' aptl held that failure to literall copl with said reuireents is not fatal to the prosecution, if there is a clear showin that

identit and interit of the sei=ed shabuspecien have een preserved, as in the case at ar. In net effect, the C' held that the chain of custod, as

ter is understood in dru-prosecution cases, has not een ro9en.

In the instant appeal, accused-appellant Castro iputes error on the part of the appellate court respectin its conclusion aout the co

delicti havin een estalished, it ein his contention that ($) the crucial lin9 in the chain of custod of the alleed sei=ed shabu had not





















estalishedG and (") accused-appellants possession of the dru had reained unproved. 1 uestionin the crediilit of the prosecutions witnesses

the weiht the courts a quo ave their narration of events, accused-appellant verital sas that he was a victi of frae-up.

0he appeal is ereft of erit.

's a ode of authenticatin evidence, the chain of custod rule reuires that the presentation and adission of the sei=ed prohiited dru a

eBhiit e preceded evidence to support a findin that the atter in uestion is what the proponent clas it to e. %$"& 0his reuireent is essenti

oviate the possiilit of sustitution as well as to ensure that douts reardin the identit of the evidence are reoved throuh the onitorin

trac9in of the oveents and custod of the sei=ed prohiited ite, fro the accused, to the police, to the forensic laorator for eBaination, and t

presentation in evidence in court.

%$*&

Ideall, the custodial chain would include testion aout ever lin9 in the chain or oveents of the illeal drfro the oent of sei=ure until it is finall adduced in evidence. It cannot e overephasi=ed, however, that a testion aout a perfect chain is al

alwas ipossile to otain.%$4&

' circuspect review of the evidence eBtant on record shows that the chain of custod rule has een sufficientl oserved. 0he prosecution

proved with oral certaint, thru the testion of their 9e witnessesi.e., 3P:" 1al, one of the apprehendin officersG 3P:" 'ncheta, the evide

custodianG and Police Inspector 2aa II, the forensic officerthat what was sei=ed fro accused-appellant in the afternoon of Jul "5, "##* near a chu

uildin in 2aoa Cit was the ver sae ite presented in court after it was su6ected to ualitative eBaination and was tested positive

ethaphetaine hdrochloride. In fine, the prosecution was ale to estalish that the identit, interit, and evidentiar value of the sei=ed prohii

drus have not een coproised fro the tie of its sei=ure at the tie and place aforestated to its presentation in evidence as part of the corpus deli

In a prosecution involvin illeal possession of prohiitedEdanerous drus, the followin eleents ust e proved ($) the accused i

possession of an ite or o6ect which is identified to e a prohiited druG (") such possession is not authori=ed lawG and (*) the accused freel

consciousl possessed the said dru. 's deterined oth the trial and appellate courts, the prosecution was ale to estalish, throuh testion

docuentar, and o6ect evidence, the said eleents. %$5& 's a atter of settled 6urisprudence on illeal possession of dru cases, credence is usu

accorded the narration of the incident the apprehendin police officers who are presued to have perfored their duties in a reular anner.

'ccused-appellant denies havin had possession of the prohiited dru in uestion.

0he accounts of arrestin officers P:$ 8anapit and 3P:" 1al elie accused-appellants ratuitous denial, oth police officers testifin with

an trace of hesitation that accused-appellant had the sachet containin the shabu in his poc9et until the oent he threw it awa. 0he fact that the pla

sachet containin shabu was alread on the round when the arrest was effected is not, standin alone, an eBculpatin factor. <hat the Court s

in People v. De Leon is instructive

7erein appellant was cauht red-handed in the act of coittin the offenses for which he was chared. 7e ade the sale in

the presence of the police operatives, the poseur-uer and the inforant. <hen he fled, he carried then threw the envelope containinthe reulated drus inside the edroo in full view of P:$ 2iuton, the pursuin arrestin officer. 0here was therefore no need for a

warrant to arrest and search the person of appellant.%$!&

In the instant case, the arrestin officers, havin een furnished a description of accused-appellant fro a tipster, had a reason to suspect

petitioner is in possession of the prohiited sustance. 0hereafter, the witnessed in plain view accused-appellant throwin to the round a plastic sa

containin a white sustance. 0he ver act of throwin awa the sachet, the contents of which were later deterined to e shabu, presupposes

accused-appellant had prior possession of it. Ergo, all the eleents of the crie have een et.

In People v. Isnani,%$+& the Court li9ewise ruled the adissiilit of shabu which was thrown outside the window the appellant in that case

?inall, accused-appellants alleation of frae-up or plantin of evidence will not avail hi an, iven the cateorical testionies of P

8anapit and 3P:" 1al of the events leadin to accused-appellants apprehension and eventual custodial investiation. In the asence of an evidence

the prosecution witnesses were otivated otives less than proper, the trial courts assessent of the crediilit of the witnesses shall not e interfe

with this Court.%$/&





















WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lac9 of erit. 0he C's Januar !, "#$# Decision and 'uust $#, "#$# Resolution in C'-.R

o. *$+* are, accordinl, AFFIRMED IN TOTO. Costs aainst accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

PEOPLE vs. VILLANUEVA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

For review is the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 0097! "ate" Dece#$er %0! %00!affir#in& in toto the Decision% of the Re&ional 'rial Court of (ala$on Cit)! *ranch 7%! in Cri#. Case No. %719-(Nfin"in& appellant Ro&er +illanueva ) Huelva &uilt) of violation of ,ection ! Article of Repu$lic Act R.A./ No. 91%00%/! otherwise nown as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 ! an" sentencin& hi# to suffer the penaof life i#prison#ent an" to pa) a fine of 200!000.00 an" costs.

'he nfor#ation "ate" 3ul) 11! %00% a&ainst the appellant alle&es4

'hat on or a$out the 9th "a) of 3ul)! %00% in the (unicipalit) of Navotas! (etro (anila 2hilippines an" within th 5uris"iction of this Honora$le Court! the a$ove-na#e" accuse"! $ein& a private person an" without authorit) o

law! "i"! then an" there! willfull)! unlawfull) an" feloniousl) sell an" "eliver in consi"eration of the a#ount of2100.00 to poseur $u)er 6ne 1/ heat-seale" transparent plastic sachet containin& white cr)stalline su$stancwith net wei&ht 0.%1 &ra#! which su$stance when su$5ecte" to che#istr) ea#ination &ave positive result for(eth)la#pheta#ine H)"rochlori"e otherwise nown 8sha$u8! a re&ulate" "ru&.

C6N'RAR '6 :A;. <

Appellant plea"e" not &uilt) upon arrai&n#ent.=

261 Ariosto Rana of the Dan&erous Dru&s >nforce#ent Group DD>G/! Northern 2olice District! testifie" that at ?400p.#. of 3ul) 9! %00%! a confi"ential infor#ant infor#e" the# that appellant was sellin& shabu at *loc ?! lot %! 2hase

Area 1! Da&at-"a&atan! Navotas. He i##e"iatel) co#pose" a tea# of police operatives to entrap the appellant! wit

hi# posin& as the poseur-$u)er. After #arin& the 2100.00 $ill an" recor"in& in the $lotter its serial nu#$er! the tea#procee"e" to the place an" arrive" thereat aroun" 94<0 p.#. He an" the infor#ant approache" the appellant while therest strate&icall) positione" the#selves. 'he infor#ant intro"uce" hi# to the appellant! who ase" the# if the) wanteto $u) shabu. Appellant &ot one plastic sachet fro# his pocet containin& a white cr)stalline su$stance. After appellanreceive" the #are" #one)! Rana eecute" the prearran&e" si&nal an" the tea# arreste" the appellant. 'heconfiscate" su$stance was su$#itte" to the Northern 2olice District-Cri#e :a$orator) for ea#ination! 7 which )iel"e"the followin& results4

,2>C(>N ,@*(''>D4

A one 1/ heat-seale" transparent plastic sachet with #arin&s 8R+H **8 containin& 0.%1 &ra# of whitecr)stalline su$stance. .

FNDNG,4

Bualitative ea#ination con"ucte" on the a$ove-state" speci#en &ave 26,'+> result to the tests for(eth)la#pheta#ine h)"rochlori"e! a re&ulate" "ru&. ?

Den)in& the accusations a&ainst hi#! appellant testifie" that on the ni&ht of the alle&e" co##ission of the cri#e! hewas at ho#e watchin& television. 'hereafter! two police#en noce" at the "oor looin& for a certain person na#e"Ro&er. ;hen he i"entifie" hi#self as Ro&er! he was i##e"iatel) han"cuffe" an" $rou&ht to the hea"uarters withouteplanation. t was onl) later that he foun" out that he was $ein& char&e" for sellin&shabu.9

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_172116_2006.html#fnt1






















After hearin&! the trial court ren"ere" its "ecision! the "ispositive portion of which rea"s4

;H>R>F6R>! pre#ises consi"ere"! 5u"&#ent is here$) ren"ere" fin"in& accuse" Ro&er +illanueva ) Huelv&uilt) $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t for "ru& pushin&! penalie" un"er ,ection ! Art. ! RA 91 an" he is here$)sentence"! in view of the s#all uantit) of sha$u involve"! to Life Imprisonment an" to pa) a fine of200!000.00! an" to pa) the costs.

'he "ecs of sha$u su$5ects of this case are forfeite" in favor of the &overn#ent to $e "ispose" of un"er therules &overnin& the sa#e. OIC-Branch Clerk of Court Enriueta A. !arue" is here$) en5oine" to i##e"iatel)turn over the "ec of sha$u to the proper authorit) for final "isposition.

Costs "e oficio.

,6 6RD>R>D.10

Consi"erin& the penalt) i#pose"! the case was "irectl) appeale" to this Court for auto#atic review. However! pursuato our "ecision in #eople v. !ateo11 #o"if)in& the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court insofar as "irect appealsfro# the Re&ional 'rial Court to the ,upre#e Court in cases where the penalt) i#pose" is "eath! reclusion perpetua life i#prison#ent! this case was referre" to the Court of Appeals! which affir#e" in toto the "ecision of the trial court!thus4

N +>; 6F A:: 'H> F6R>G6NG! the instant appeal is here$) D,(,,>D an" the challen&e" "ecision

AFFR(>D in toto. Costs "e oficio.

,6 6RD>R>D.1%

Hence! this petition.

'he core issue for resolution is whether error atten"e" the trial courtEs fin"in&s! as affir#e" $) the Court of Appeals! tappellant was &uilt) $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t of violation of ,ection ! Article ! of R.A. No. 91.

Appellant #aintains that there was no entrap#ent an" that he was arreste" in his house on the ni&ht of the alle&e"co##ission of the cri#e. ;hile he a"#its that the resolution of the case woul" $oil "own to the "eter#ination of who$etween the parties is #ore cre"i$le! he insists that the presu#ption of re&ularit) in the perfor#ance of official "ut)

alone coul" not sustain a conviction an" that the self-servin& an" uncorro$orate" testi#on) of 261 Rana coul" notprevail over his constitutionall) &uarantee" presu#ption of innocence.1<

n essence! what appellant puts at issue is the trial courtEs appreciation of factual "etails of the $u)-$ust operation or tentrap#ent. ,uffice it to sa) that settle" is the polic) of this Court! foun"e" on reason an" eperience! to sustain thefactual fin"in&s of the trial court in cri#inal cases! on the rational assu#ption that it is in a $etter position to assess thevi"ence $efore it! havin& ha" the opportunit) to #ae an honest "eter#ination of the witnessesE "eport#ent "urin& ttrial.1= n the instant case! we fin" no $asis to "isre&ar" the trial courtEs factual fin"in&s.

n"ee"! in cri#inal cases! the prosecution $ears the onus to prove $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t not onl) the co##issionthe cri#e $ut liewise to esta$lish! with the sa#e uantu# of proof! the i"entit) of the person or persons responsi$letherefor. 'his $ur"en of proof "oes not shift to the "efense $ut re#ains in the prosecution throu&hout the trial. Howevwhen the prosecution has succee"e" in "ischar&in& the $ur"en of proof $) presentin& evi"ence sufficient to convincethe court of the truth of the alle&ations in the infor#ation or has esta$lishe" a pri#a facie case a&ainst the accuse"! t$ur"en of evi"ence shifts to the accuse" #ain& it incu#$ent upon hi# to a""uce evi"ence in or"er to #eet an" nulliif not to overthrow! that pri#a facie case.1

'o sustain a conviction un"er a sin&le prosecution witness! such testi#on) nee"s onl) to esta$lish sufficientl)4 1/ thei"entit) of the $u)er! seller! o$5ect an" consi"eration an" %/ the "eliver) of the thin& sol" an" the pa)#ent thereof.n"ee"! what is #aterial is proof that the transaction or sale actuall) too place! couple" with the presentation in courtthe su$stance seie" as evi"ence.1 n this case! 261 Rana! $ein& the poseur-$u)er! was the #ost co#petent persontestif) on the fact of sale an" he "i" so to the satisfaction of $oth the trial court an" the appellate court.

'hus! we a&ree with the Court of Appeals that4



















Contrar) to appellantEs assertions! the prosecution has esta$lishe" with #oral certaint) the presence of all theele#ents necessar) for the prosecution for the ille&al sale of shabu. n the case at $ar! there is no "ou$t thatappellant was cau&ht in the ver) act of sellin& $shabu$% a prohi$ite" "ru&. 261 Ariosto Rana! the prosecutionwitness who acte" as poseur-$u)er! narrate" in a clear an" strai&htforwar" #anner the facts of sale.

;hat is #ore! the i"entities of the seller an" the $u)er to&ether with the corpus &elict'i( of sellin& shabuhavealso $een "ul) esta$lishe". 2oseur-$u)er 261 Ariosto Rana positivel) i"entifie" accuse"-appellant Ro&er+illanueva as the person who sol" to hi# one plastic sachet containin& the white cr)stalline su$stance.

'hen too! the re&ulate" "ru& of shabu containe" in a plastic sachet which the appellant han"e" over to the$u)er! was also "ul) proven $efore the trial court.

A&ainst these stron& positive an" su$stantial evi"ence! appellant coul" onl) sa) that no $u)-$ust operation wcon"ucte" an"! instea"! insists that he was 5ust a victi# of fra#e-up that the police#en carrie" out an ille&alsearch on the pre#ises of his house! plante" evi"ence! an" then char&e" hi# as a supplier of "ru&s.

'he contentions are without #erit.

A $u)-$ust operation is a for# of entrap#ent that is resorte" to for trappin& an" capturin& felons in the eecutof their cri#inal plan. 'he operation is sanctione" $) law an" has consistentl) prove" to $e an effective #ethoof apprehen"in& "ru& pe""lers. @nless there is clear an" convincin& evi"ence that the #e#$ers of the $u)-$utea# were inspire" $) an) i#proper #otive or were not properl) perfor#in& their "ut)! their testi#onies withrespect to the operation "eserve full faith an" cre"it. +eril)! here! fro# the evi"ence a""uce"! ;e fin" no reasto "epart fro# the &eneral rule. ;e are one with the court a uoEs conclusion that the prosecution was a$le toesta$lish that a $u)-$ust operation actuall) too place startin& fro# the ti#e the tea# co#pose" of nine 9/#e#$ers procee"e" to the tar&et area at 9400 p.#. for the initial ne&otiation until the perfection of the sale at94<0 p.#. the sa#e ni&ht.17

(oreover! when the police officers involve" in the $u)-$ust operation have no #otive to falsel) testif) a&ainst theaccuse"! the courts shall uphol" the presu#ption that the) have perfor#e" their "uties re&ularl) 1? an" as hel" in#eopv. #acis!19 $are "enials $) the accuse" cannot overco#e this presu#ption.

All tol"! the trial court an" the Court of Appeals correctl) hel" that the appellant co##itte" the cri#e char&e". ;hatre#ains to $e "eter#ine" is the correctness of the penalt) i#pose" on the felon) co##itte".

,ection ! Article of RA 91 rea"s4

,ec. . )ale% *ra&ing% A&ministration% Dispensation% Deliver+% Distribution an& *ransportation of DangerousDrugs an&,or Controlle& #recursors an& Essential Chemicals. - 'he penalt) of life i#prison#ent to "eath an" fine ran&in& fro# Five hun"re" thousan" pesos 200!000.00/ to 'en #illion pesos 210!000!000.00/ shall $ei#pose" upon an) person! who! unless authorie" $) law! shall sell! tra"e! a"#inister! "ispense! "eliver! &iveawa) to another! "istri$ute! "ispatch in transit or transport an) "an&erous "ru&! inclu"in& an) an" all species oopiu# popp) regardess of t!e "#antit$ and p#rit$ invoved! or shall act as a $roer in an) of suchtransactions.

n fin"in& appellant &uilt) $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t of the cri#e char&e"! the trial court sentence" hi# to suffer thepenalt) of life i#prison#ent an" to pa) a fine of Five Hun"re" 'housan" pesos 200!000.00/. ;hile it correctl)i#pose" the sai" penalties! we fin" the reason &iven therefor! that is! in vie of the small uantit+ of shabu involve& !inaccurate.

@nlie un"er the repeale" R.A. No. =% 197%/ or the Dan&erous Dru&s Act of 197% where the i#posa$le penalt)"epen"s on the uantit) of the re&ulate" "ru& involve"! the fore&oin& provision now i#poses the penalt) of life











i#prison#ent to "eath an" a fine ran&in& fro# Five hun"re" thousan" pesos 200!000.00/ to 'en #illion pesos210!000!000.00/ for the sae! tra"e! a"#inistration! "ispensation! "eliver)! "istri$ution an" transportation of shabu! a"an&erous "ru&! regardess of t!e "#antit$ invoved.%0

%&ERE'ORE! in view of the fore&oin&! the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 0097! "ate"Dece#$er %0! %00! affir#in& in toto the Decision of the Re&ional 'rial Court of (ala$on Cit)! *ranch 7%! in Cri#. CaNo. %719-(N fin"in& appellant Ro&er +illanueva ) Huelva &uilt) of violation of ,ection ! Article of Repu$lic Act No91! otherwise nown as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 ! an" sentencin& hi# to suffer the penaltof life i#prison#ent an" to pa) a fine of 200!000.00 an" costs! is here$) A''IR(E).

SO OR)ERE).

PEOPLE vs. *LI(A*O

*ARPIO+ J.:

T!e *ase

'his is a consoli"ate" cri#inal case file" a&ainst appellant Go#er ,. Cli#aco Cli#aco/ for violation of ,ections an"11 of Repu$lic Act No. 91 'he Co#prehensive Dan&erous Dru&s Act of %00%/ for ille&al possession Cri#inal CaseNo. =911-,2:/ an" ille&al sale Cri#inal Case No. =91%-,2:/ of #etha#pheta#ine h)"rochlori"e! a "an&erous "ru&

'he Re&ional 'rial Court R'C/ of ,an 2e"ro! :a&una! *ranch <1! in its Decision "ate" %0 3anuar) %009 R'CDecision/! foun" Cli#aco &uilt) $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t of the cri#e of ille&al possession of #etha#pheta#ineh)"rochlori"e! a "an&erous "ru&! an" sentence" hi# to i#prison#ent of 1% )ears an" 1 "a) to 1= )ears an" ? #onthwith a fine of 2 <00!000.00 in Cri#inal Case No. =911-,2:.1 n Cri#inal Case No. =91%-,2:! the R'C foun" Cli#aco&uilt) $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t of the cri#e of ille&al sale of #etha#pheta#ine h)"rochlori"e! an" sentence" hi# to i#prison#ent with a fine of 200!000.00. 6n appeal! the ,pecial Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals CA/! in itsDecision "ate" %9 (arch %011 CA Decision/! affir#e" the R'C Decision. % Cli#aco appeale" to this Court $) filin& aNotice of Appeal in accor"ance with ,ection <c/! Rule 1%% of the Rules of Court.<

Prose,#tions Version

'he prosecutionEs version of events is su##arie" in the R'C Decision4=

'he prosecution presente" two %/ witnesses in the persons of 261 Alain"elon (. &nacio! who &ave his testi#on) on3anuar) %00! ? Fe$ruar) %00 an" % Au&ust %00 an" Forensic Che#ist Donna +illa Huel&as! whose testi#on) wa"ispense" with on 3anuar) %00 upon "efenseEs a"#ission of the eistence of the followin&4 1/ ;ritten Reuest for:a$orator) >a#ination as >hi$it 8A8 %/ 'he Che#istr) Report No. D-110%-0= as >hi$it 8*8 </ 1 white envelope>hi$it 8C8 =/ the eistence of two %/ plastic sachets with #arin&s 8G,C-18 as >hi$it 8C-18 an" / another one wit#arin&s 8G,C-%8 as >hi$it 8C-%8.

261 &nacio testifie" that he is a #e#$er of the 2hilippine National 2olice since 1 6cto$er 1999 an" was assi&ne" ntelli&ence Division! ,an 2e"ro (unicipal 2olice ,tation. As #e#$er of the ntelli&ence Division! he was tase" tocon"uct surveillance operation an" apprehen" persons en&a&e" in ille&al "ru& activit). 6n 7 ,epte#$er %00=! he waon %=-hour "ut) at 2AC $ase locate" at @nite" *a)anihan! ,an 2e"ro! :a&una. At aroun" 400 in the evenin& of thesa#e "a)! 261 &nacio! ,26< ,a#son! ,26= *alver"e! so#e #e#$ers of the :a&una ,pecial 6peration 'ea#!

(e#$ers of the 2rovincial ntelli&ence an" nvesti&ation Division con"ucte" a $riefin& re&ar"in& a "ru& operationa&ainst a certain Go#er Cli#aco! No. in the "ru& watch list in ,an 2e"ro! :a&una. Durin& the $riefin&! 261 &naciowas tase" to act as the poseur-$u)er an" ,26= Al#e"a as the overall tea# lea"er. 'he $u)-$ust #one) wasprepare"! which consist of 200.00 $ill an" so#e $oo"le #one). 'he tea# was also ar#e" with a ;arrant of Arrest fille&al "ru&s issue" $) 3u"&e 2ao. After the $riefin&! the tea# procee"e" to the tar&et area. ;hen the) arrive"! 261&nacio saw the suspect stan"in& in front of his house. 'he other #e#$ers of the tea# strate&icall) positione"the#selves. ,ince 261 &nacio alrea") new the suspect! 261 &nacio 5ust tol" Go#er that he woul" $u) sha$u.Go#er entere" his house an" too so#ethin&. ;hen he ca#e out! Go#er showe" to 261 &nacio the sha$u. 261&nacio scratche" his hea" to si&nal the tea# that ite# was shown to hi# an" he woul" eecute the $u)in& of thesha$u. After Go#er ase" for the #one) an" 261 &nacio &ave it to hi#! ,26< ,a#son an" the rest of the tea#i##e"iatel) #ove" in to effect the arrest of the suspect. ,ince he was cau&ht in the act! Go#er "i" not resist an)#or'he tea# liewise showe" Go#er his warrant of arrest. 261 &nacio saw ,26< ,a#son fris an" as Go#er to e#p


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jun2012/gr_199403_2012.html#fnt1











his pocets. ,26< ,a#son was a$le to recover another plastic sachet! which was inserte" $etween Go#erEs fin&ers'he plastic sachet! which was the pro"uct of the $u)-$ust! an" the one recovere" fro# Go#er were turne" over to,26= 'eofilo Ro)ena! who turne" the# over to the 6ffice of the ,pecial 6peration Group locate" at *r&). 'u$i&an!*ian! :a&una. 'he plastic sachet pro"uct of the $u)-$ust was #are" 'R-*! which #eans 'eofilo Ro)ena an" theletter 8*8 #eans 8*ust.8 ;hile the plastic sachet recovere" fro# Go#er was #are" 'R-R! which #eans 'eofilo Ro)ean" the letter 8R8 #eans 8Recovere"8. 261 &nacio i"entifie" the accuse" Go#er Cli#aco in open court. He liewisei"entifie" his sworn state#ent. Durin& the cross-ea#ination! 261 &nacio a"#itte" that he learne" of the warrant ofarrest on 7 ,epte#$er %00= onl). t was ,26= +alver"e who instructe" 26 &nacio to con"uct surveillance operationa&ainst Go#er! who was en&a&e" in ra#pant sellin& of sha$u.

Asi"e fro# the testi#on) of 261 Alain"elon &nacio &nacio/! the followin& "ocu#entar) ehi$its were offere" for theprosecution4 1/ >hi$it 8A8 :etter "ate" 7 ,epte#$er %00= %/ >hi$it 8*8 Che#istr) Report No. D-110%-0= </>hi$it 8C8 6ne-half white envelope =/ >hi$it 8C-18 2lastic sachet with white cr)stalline su$stance with #arin&8G,C-18 / >hi$it 8C-%8 2lastic sachet with white cr)stalline sus$tance with #arin&s 8G,C-%8 an" / >hi$it 8D2inanu#paan& ,ala)sa) of 261 &nacio.

)efenses Version

Appellant Cli#aco! on the other han"! presente" three witnesses an" "enie" the prosecutionEs alle&ations of sale an"possession of shabu. 'he "efenseEs version of the events! as narrate" in the R'C Decision! is as follows4

'he "efense presente" three </ witnesses in the persons of the accuse" hi#self! Go#er ,. Cli#aco! who testifie" on1< (a) %00?! (ichael (. *asihan! who &ave his testi#on) on 7 6cto$er %00?! an" Cristina Ga#$oa Cli#aco! who&ave her testi#on) on % Nove#$er %00?.

Go#er ,. Cli#aco testifie" that prior to 7 ,epte#$er %00=! he "i" not now ,26% ;ilfre"o ,a#son an" 261 Alain"elon &nacio. 6n 7 ,epte#$er %00=! Go#er! to&ether with his wife an" five / chil"ren! were insi"e their house;hen Go#er was fee"in& the chicen in front of his )ar"! four =/ uni"entifie" ar#e" #en su""enl) arrive" an" frisehi#. ;hen nothin& was foun" in his possession! the #en han"cuffe" an" $rou&ht hi# to the police station. At the polstation! the #en file" a case a&ainst hi#. Go#er "enie" havin& sol" an" "elivere" sha$u to a police poseur-$u)er anthat he was in possesion of sha$u. Durin& the cross-ea#ination! Go#er sai" that while he was $ein& frise" $) the#en! Go#er ase" the #en what was his violation. 'he #en replie" that so#e$o") $ou&ht sha$u fro# hi#. Go#er tthe #en that he "i" nothin& wron&! $ut the #en continue" to han"cuff hi#. Go#er was not aware that he was inclu"ein the list of top %0 ille&al "ru& pushers. Go#er "i" not now of an) ill #otive on the part of the police officer wh) hewoul" $e char&e" with so &rave an offense. He "i" not file an) case a&ainst the police officer who arreste" hi#.

(ichael (. *asihan testifie" that Go#er Cli#aco was his nei&h$or in *a&on& ,ilan&. 6n 7 ,epte#$er %00=! (ichaelwent to Go#erEs #anuan to &ather &uava fruits. ;hen he arrive" there! Go#er was ten"in& to his cocs. ;hile he w&atherin& &uava fruits! (ichael saw four =/ uni"entifie" ar#e" #en su""enl) $ar&e into the pre#ises an" arrestGo#er. After he was han"cuffe"! Go#er was #a"e to $oar" a vehicle where he was $rou&ht to 3aa ,u$"ivision.(ichael coul" not re#e#$er whether it was #ornin& or evenin& when Go#er was arreste" $) uni"entifie" ar#e" #e$ecause the inci"ent happene" a lon& ti#e a&o.

Cristina Ga#$oa Cli#aco testifie" that she is the wife of Go#er Cli#aco. ,he "i" not now ,26% ;ilfre"o ,a#son a261 Alain"elon &nacio. 6n 7 ,epte#$er %00=! she was insi"e their house tain& care of her chil". At aroun" <400 inthe afternoon of the sa#e "a)! Go#er arrive" in their house! who 5ust ca#e fro# *aran&a) Cu)a$. After tain& a $athGo#er went outsi"e of their house. ;hile in front of their house! Go#er calle" the person tain& care of his chicens

Go#er an" that person went to the $ac of the house. (eanwhile! Cristina went insi"e the house. Althou&h she wasinsi"e of the house! Cristina coul" see Go#er an" the person throu&h the win"ow. At aroun" =400 in the afternoon!Cristina saw four =/ uni"entifie" ar#e" #en approach an" as so#ethin& fro# Go#er. After a few #inutes! Go#er lethe $ac of the house! while the #en were left stan"in& there. Cristina went out the house an" saw her hus$an" &otowar" the "irection of ,t. Re)#on". At aroun" 400 in the evenin&! Cirstina went "own fro# their house to as (ichaif he saw Go#er. (ichael tol" Cristina that he saw Go#er loa"e" into a van $) several #en. Durin& the cross-ea#ination! Cristina sai" that she "i" not now of an) reason wh) ,26% ,a#son an" 261 &nacio woul" arrest herhus$an".7

T!e )e,ision of t!e Regiona Tria *o#rt









'he R'C "eclare" Cli#aco &uilt) of the cri#es of ille&al sale an" ille&al possession of #etha#pheta#ine h)"rochlorior shabu! a "an&erous "ru&. 'he "ispositive portion of the R'C Decision rea"s4

;H>R>F6R>! in Cri#inal Case No. =91%-,2:! the Court fin"s the accuse"! Go#er ,. Cli#aco! G@:' $e)on"reasona$le "ou$t of the cri#e of violation of ,ec. of R.A. 91! otherwise nown as the Co#prehensive Dan&erousDru&s Act of %00%! an" here$) sentences hi# to suffer the penalt) of life i#prison#ent an" to pa) a fineof 2 00!000.00.

n Cri#inal Case No. =911-,2:! the Court fin"s the accuse"! Go#er ,. Cli#aco! G@:' $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t othe cri#e of violation of ,ec. 11 of R.A. 91! otherwise nown as the Co#prehensive Dan&erous Dru&s Act of %00%!

an" sentencin& hi# to suffer i#prison#ent of twelve 1%/ )ears an" one 1/ "a) to fourteen 1=/ )ears an" ei&ht ?/#onths an" to pa) a fine of three hun"re" thousan" pesos 2 <00!000.00/.

'he *ranch Cler of Court is "irecte" to trans#it to the 2hilippine Dru& >nforce#ent A&enc) 2D>A/! the plasticsachets su$5ect #atter of these cases! for sai" a&enc)Es appropriate "isposition.

,6 6RD>R>D.?

'he R'C foun" that the ele#ents for the cri#es of ille&al sale an" ille&al possession of shabu were sufficientl)esta$lishe" $) the prosecution.9 'he R'C hel" that Cli#acoEs "efense of fra#e-up is viewe" with "isfavor as it can $eeasil) concocte".10 'he R'C &ave full faith an" cre"it to the testi#on) of 261 &nacio! an" "eclare" the police officerswho participate" in the $u)-$ust operation were properl) perfor#in& their "uties $ecause the) were not inspire" $) an

i#proper #otive.

11

T!e )e,ision of t!e *o#rt of Appeas

'he CA affir#e" the conviction of Cli#aco. 'he "ispositive portion of the CA Decision rea"s as follows4

;H>R>F6R>! the appeal is D>N>D an" the 5u"&#ent "ate" 3anuar) %0! %009 of the R'C in Cri#inal Case Nos.=911-,2: an" =91%-,2: fin"in& appellant Go#er ,. Cli#aco &uilt) $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t of violation of ,ections an" 11 of Rep. Act No. 91 is AFFR(>D.1%

'he CA "eclare" that all the ele#ents of the cri#es of ille&al sale an" ille&al possession of "an&erous "ru&s wereproven.1< 'he CA foun" that $ase" on the testi#on) of 261 &nacio! it was esta$lishe" that the chain of custo") over

the seie" "ru&s was un$roen fro# the arrestin& officers to ,26= Ro)ena! an" then to the forensic che#ist forea#ination.1=

T!e Iss#e

'he sole issue in this case is whether the &uilt of Cli#aco for the cri#es of ille&al sale an" ille&al possession of shabu"an&erous "ru&! was proven $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t.

T!e R#ing of t!is *o#rt

;e resolve to acuit Cli#aco for the prosecutionEs failure to prove his &uilt $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t.

261 &nacio! in his testi#on)! clai#e" that the "an&erous "ru&s seie" fro# Cli#aco were #are" $) ,26= 'eofiloRo)ena as 8'R-*8 an" 8'R-R.81 However! the Che#istr) Report su$#itte" to the trial court shows that the "an&erous"ru&s ea#ine" an" confir#e" to $e #etha#pheta#ine h)"rochlori"e or shabu $) the forensic che#ist were #are"as 8G,C18 an" 8G,C%.81 ,ince what was seie" 8'R-*8 an" 8'R-R8/ $) 261 &nacio fro# Cli#aco at the ti#e of the$u)-$ust operation was "ifferent fro# the "an&erous "ru&s su$#itte" 8G,C18 an" 8G,C%8/ to the forensic che#ist foreview an" evaluation! the chain of custo") over the "an&erous "ru&s was $roen an" the inte&rit) of the evi"encesu$#itte" to the trial court was not preserve"! castin& "ou$t on the &uilt of Cli#aco.

*onstit#tiona Pres#mption of Inno,en,e %eig!t of Eviden,e

























'he Constitution &uarantees the accuse"Es presu#ption of innocence until proven &uilt). ,ection 1=%/ of the *ill ofRi&hts Article / provi"es that! in all cri#inal prosecutions! the accuse" shall $e presu#e" innocent until the contrarprove".

,ection %! Rule 1<< of the Rules of Court liewise states that! in a cri#inal case! the accuse" is entitle" to an acuittaunless his &uilt is prove" $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t. 2roof $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t "oes not #ean such a "e&ree ofproof! eclu"in& possi$ilit) of error! which pro"uces a$solute certaint). 6nl) #oral certainl) is reuire"! or that "e&reeproof which pro"uces conviction in an unpre5u"ice" #in".

/*!ain of *#stod$/ Over t!e *onfis,ated Items

'he ele#ents necessar) in ever) prosecution for the ille&al sale of shabu are4 1/ the i"entit) of the $u)er an" the selthe o$5ect an" the consi"eration an" %/ the "eliver) of the thin& sol" an" the pa)#ent.17 ,i#ilarl)! it is essential that transaction or sale $e prove" to have actuall) taen place couple" with the presentation in court of evi"ence of corpu&elicti which #eans the 8actual co##ission $) so#eone of the particular cri#e char&e".81?'he corpus &elicti in casesinvolvin& "an&erous "ru&s is the presentation of the "an&erous "ru& itself.

6n the other han"! to successfull) prosecute a case of ille&al possession of "an&erous "ru&s! the followin& ele#ents#ust $e esta$lishe"4 1/ the accuse" is in possession of an ite# or o$5ect which is i"entifie" to $e a prohi$ite" "ru& such possession is not authorie" $) law an" </ the accuse" freel) an" consciousl) possesse" the "ru&.19

n $oth cases of ille&al sale an" ille&al possession of "an&erous "ru&s! the chain of custo") over the "an&erous "ru&#ust $e shown to esta$lish the corpus &elicti . n #eople v. Alcui"ar !%0 the Court hel"4

'he "an&erous "ru& itself! the sha$u in this case! constitutes the ver) corpus "elicti of the offense an" in sustainin& aconviction un"er Repu$lic Act No. 91! the i"entit) an" inte&rit) of the corpus "elicti #ust "efinitel) $e shown to hav$een preserve". 'his reuire#ent necessaril) arises fro# the ille&al "ru&Es uniue characteristic that ren"ers itin"istinct! not rea"il) i"entifia$le! an" easil) open to ta#perin&! alteration or su$stitution either $) acci"ent or otherwis'hus! to re#ove an) "ou$t or uncertaint) on the i"entit) an" inte&rit) of the seie" "ru&! evi"ence #ust "efinitel) shothat the ille&al "ru& presente" in court is the sa#e ille&al "ru& actuall) recovere" fro# the accuse"-appellant otherwithe prosecution for possession un"er Repu$lic Act No. 91 fails.

,ection 1$/ of Dan&erous Dru&s *oar" Re&ulation No. 1! ,eries of %00%!%1 which i#ple#ents the Co#prehensiveDan&erous Dru&s Act of %00%! "efines 8chain of custo")8 as follows4

8Chain of Custo")8 #eans the "ul) recor"e" authorie" #ove#ents an" custo") of seie" "ru&s or controlle"che#icals or plant sources of "an&erous "ru&s or la$orator) euip#ent of each sta&e! fro# the ti#e ofseiureIconfiscation to receipt in the forensic la$orator) to safeeepin& to presentation in court for "estruction. ,uchrecor" of #ove#ents an" custo") of seie" ite# shall inclu"e the i"entit) an" si&nature of the person who hel"te#porar) custo") of the seie" ite#! the "ate an" ti#e when such transfer of custo") were #a"e in the course ofsafeeepin& an" use in court as evi"ence! an" the final "isposition.

n !alillin v. #eople!%% the Court eplaine" the i#portance of the chain of custo")4

2rosecutions for ille&al possession of prohi$ite" "ru&s necessitates that the ele#ental act of possession of a prohi$ite

su$stance $e esta$lishe" with #oral certaint)! to&ether with the fact that the sa#e is not authorie" $) law. 'he"an&erous "ru& itself constitutes the ver) corpus &elicti of the offense an" the fact of its eistence is vital to a 5u"&#eof conviction. >ssential therefore in these cases is that the i"entit) of the prohi$ite" "ru& $e esta$lishe" $e)on" "ou$*e that as it #a)! the #ere fact of unauthorie" possession will not suffice to create in a reasona$le #in" the #oralcertaint) reuire" to sustain a fin"in& of &uilt. (ore than 5ust the fact of possession! the fact that the su$stance ille&allpossesse" in the first place is the sa#e su$stance offere" in court as ehi$it #ust also $e esta$lishe" with the sa#eunwaverin& eactitu"e as that reuisite to #ae a fin"in& of &uilt. 'he chain of custo") reuire#ent perfor#s thisfunction in that it ensures that unnecessar) "ou$ts concernin& the i"entit) of the evi"ence are re#ove".

As a #etho" of authenticatin& evi"ence! the chain of custo") rule reuires that the a"#ission of an ehi$it $e prece"$) evi"ence sufficient to support a fin"in& that the #atter in uestion is what the proponent clai#s it to $e. t woul"
















inclu"e testi#on) a$out ever) lin in the chain! fro# the #o#ent the ite# was pice" up to the ti#e it is offere" inevi"ence! in such a wa) that ever) person who touche" the ehi$it woul" "escri$e how an" fro# who# it was receivewhere it was an" what happene" to it while in the witnessE possession! the con"ition in which it was receive" an" thecon"ition in which it was "elivere" to the net lin in the chain. 'hese witnesses woul" then "escri$e the precautionstaen to ensure that there ha" $een no chan&e in the con"ition of the ite# an" no opportunit) for so#eone not in thechain to have possession of the sa#e.

;hile testi#on) a$out a perfect chain is not alwa)s the stan"ar" $ecause it is al#ost alwa)s i#possi$le to o$tain! anun$roen chain of custo") $eco#es in"ispensa$le an" essential when the ite# of real evi"ence is not "istinctive an"not rea"il) i"entifia$le! or when its con"ition at the ti#e of testin& or trial is critical! or when a witness has faile" to

o$serve its uniueness. 'he sa#e stan"ar" liewise o$tains in case the evi"ence is suscepti$le to alteration! ta#perconta#ination an" even su$stitution an" echan&e. n other wor"s! the ehi$itEs level of suscepti$ilit) to fun&i$ilit)!alteration or ta#perin& without re&ar" to whether the sa#e is a"vertent or otherwise not "ictates the level ofstrictness in the application of the chain of custo") rule.

n"ee"! the lielihoo" of ta#perin&! loss or #istae with respect to an ehi$it is &reatest when the ehi$it is s#all an"one that has ph)sical characteristics fun&i$le in nature an" si#ilar in for# to su$stances fa#iliar to people in their "ailives. raham v. )tate positivel) acnowle"&e" this "an&er. n that case where a su$stance was later anal)e" asheroin was han"le" $) two police officers prior to ea#ination who however "i" not testif) in court on the con"itionan" wherea$outs of the ehi$it at the ti#e it was in their possession was eclu"e" fro# the prosecution evi"ence! tcourt pointin& out that the white pow"er seie" coul" have $een in"ee" heroin or it coul" have $een su&ar or $ain&pow"er. t rule" that unless the state can show $) recor"s or testi#on)! the continuous wherea$outs of the ehi$it atleast $etween the ti#e it ca#e into the posession of the police officers until it was teste" in the la$orator) to "eter#in

its co#position! testi#on) of the state as to the la$orator)Es fin"in&s is ina"#issi$le.

A uniue characteristic of narcotic su$stances is that the) are not rea"il) i"entifia$le as in fact the) are su$5ect toscientific anal)sis to "eter#ine their co#position an" nature. 'he Court cannot reluctantl) close its e)es to the lielihoor at least the possi$ilit)! that at an) of the lins in the chain of custo") over the sa#e there coul" have $een ta#perinalteration or su$stitution of su$stances fro# other cases $) acci"ent or otherwise in which si#ilar evi"ence wasseie" or in which si#ilar evi"ence was su$#itte" for la$orator) testin&. Hence! in authenticatin& the sa#e! a stan"a#ore strin&ent than that applie" to cases involvin& o$5ects which are rea"il) i"entifia$le #ust $e applie"! a #oreeactin& stan"ar" that entails a chain of custo") of the ite# with sufficient co#pleteness if onl) to ren"er it i#pro$a$lthat the ori&inal ite# has either $een echan&e" with another or $een conta#inate" or ta#pere" with.

n this case! 261 &nacio! in his testi#on)! clai#e" that the su$stances seie" fro# Cli#aco "urin& the $u)-$ust

operation were #are" as 8'R-R8 an" 8'R-*84

*ase" on the testi#on) of 261 &nacio! the su$stances retrieve" fro# Cli#aco an" su$#itte" to the court werecontaine" in two %/ plastic sachets with the #arin&s 8'R-R8 an" 8'R-*.8 However! accor"in& to the Che#istr) Repoeecute" $) Forensic Che#ist Donna +illa 2. Huel&as on ? ,epte#$er %00=! the plastic sachets su$#itte" forea#ination carrie" the #arin&s 8G,C-18 an" 8G,C-%!8 "ifferent fro# the plastic sachets #are" 8'R-R8 an" 8'R-*containin& the "ru&s retrieve" fro# Cli#aco4

CH>(,'R R>26R' N@(*>R4 D-110%-0=

,2>C(>N ,@*(''>D4

A 6ne 1/ heat-seale" transparent plastic sachet! with #arin&s 8G,C18! containin& 0.< &ra# of whitecr)stalline su$stance an" place" in a staple-seale" transparent plastic $a&. Alle&e"l) $ou&ht $) the 2olice2oseur-*u)er/

* 6ne 1/ heat-seale" transparent plastic sachet! with #arin&s 8G,C%8! containin& 0.1= &ra# of whitecr)stalline su$stance an" place" in a staple-seale" transparent plastic $a&. Alle&e"l) foun" fro# the posessiof Glo#er Cli#aco/%=

n a""ition! in the n"e of >hi$its su$#itte" $) the 6fficer-in-Char&e of the R'C! >hi$it 8C-18 was "escri$e" as a8plastic sachet with white cr)stalline su$stance with #arin&s JG,C-1E8 while >hi$it 8C-%8 was "escri$e" as a 8plastic





sachet with white cr)stalline su$stance with #arin&s JG,C-%!E8% contrar) to the testi#on) of 261 &nacio an" the"eclaration of 2rosecutor Casano that the speci#ens su$#itte" to the court carrie" the #arin&s 8'R-*8 an" 8'R-R.8

:iewise! in the han"written (inutes "ate" 3anuar) %00! >hi$it 8C-18 was i"entifie" as a plastic sachet with whitecr)stalline su$stance with #arin& 8G,C-1!8 an" >hi$it 8C-%8 was i"entifie" as a plastic sachet with white cr)stallinesu$stance with #arin& 8G,C-%.8%

Clearl)! what was su$#itte" to the trial court were plastic sachets $earin& the #arin&s 8G,C-18 an" 8G,C-%!8 insteaof the plastic sachets $earin& the #arin&s 8'R-R8 an" 8'R-*8 that containe" the su$stances recovere" fro# Cli#aco'his fact is evi"ent fro# the R'C Decision! reco&niin& >hi$its 8C-18 an" 8C-%8 to $ear the #arin&s 8G,C-18 an"

8G,C-%!8 while acnowle"&in& the testi#on) of 261 &nacio that the plastic sachets containin& the su$stancesrecovere" fro# Cli#aco $ore the #arin&s 8'R-R8 an" 8'R-*84

'he prosecution presente" two %/ witnesses in the persons of 'orensi, *!emist )onna Via &#egas! whosetesti#on) was "ispense" with on 3anuar) %00 upon "efenseEs a"#ission of the eistence of the followin&4 1/ ;rittReuest for :a$orator) >a#ination as >hi$it 8A8 %/ 'he Che#istr) Report No. D-110%-0= as >hi$it 8*8 </ 1 whenvelope as >hi$it 8C8 01 t!e e2isten,e of t3o 451 pasti, sa,!ets 3it! mar6ings /GS*-7/ as E2!i8it /*-7/ and91 anot!er one 3it! mar6ings /GS*-5/ as E2!i8it /*-5/.

'he plastic sachet pro"uct of the $u)-$ust was #are" 'R-*! which #eans 'eofilo Ro)ena an" the letter 8*8 #ean

8*ust.8 ;hile the plastic sachet recovere" fro# Go#er was #are" 'R-R! which #eans 'eofilo Ro)ena an" the lette8R8 #eans 8Recovere"8.%7 >#phasis supplie"/

'he prosecution "i" not eplain wh) the #arin&s of the plastic sachets containin& the alle&e" "ru&s! which weresu$#itte" to $e 8'R-*8 an" 8'R-R!8 $eca#e 8G,C-18 an" 8G,C-%8 in the Che#istr) Report! n"e of >hi$its an"(inutes of the Hearin&. n their "ecisions! the R'C an" CA were silent on the chan&e of the #arin&s. n fact! since th#arin&s are "ifferent! the presu#ption is that the su$stance in the plastic sachets #are" as 8'R-*8 an" 8'R-R8 is"ifferent fro# the su$stance in the plastic sachets #are" as 8G,C-18 an" 8G,C-%.8 'here is no #oral certaint) that tsu$stance taen fro# appellant is the sa#e "an&erous "ru& su$#itte" to the la$orator) an" the trial court. /phi/

As hel" in !alillin v. #eople!%? to esta$lish &uilt of the accuse" $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t in cases involvin& "an&erous"ru&s! it is i#portant that the su$stance ille&all) possesse" in the first place $e the sa#e su$stance offere" in court aehi$it. 'his chain of custo") reuire#ent ensures that unnecessar) "ou$ts are re#ove" concernin& the i"entit) of th

evi"ence. ;hen the i"entit) of the "an&erous "ru& recovere" fro# the accuse" is not the sa#e "an&erous "ru&presente" to the forensic che#ist for review an" ea#ination! nor the sa#e "an&erous "ru& presente" to the court! thi"entit) of the "an&erous "ru& is not preserve" "ue to the $roen chain of custo"). ;ith this! an ele#ent in the cri#incases for ille&al sale an" ille&al possession of "an&erous "ru&s! the corpus &elicti ! is not proven! an" the accuse" #uthen $e acuitte" $ase" on reasona$le "ou$t. For this reason! Cli#aco #ust $e acuitte" on the &roun" of reasona$"ou$t "ue to the $roen chain of custo") over the "an&erous "ru& alle&e"l) recovere" fro# hi#.

%&ERE'ORE! we SET ASI)E the %9 (arch %011 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 0<?0affir#in& the 5u"&#ent of conviction of the Re&ional 'rial Court! *ranch <1! ,an 2e"ro! :a&una in Cri#inal Case Nos=911-,2: an" =91%-,2: "ate" %0 3anuar) %009. ;e A*:UIT appellant Go#er ,. Cli#aco $ase" on reasona$le "ouan" we OR)ER his i##e"iate release fro# "etention! unless he is "etaine" for an) other lawful cause.

;e )IRE*T the Director of the *ureau of Corrections to i#ple#ent this Decision an" to report to this Court on theaction taen within five / "a)s fro# receipt of this Decision.

,6 6RD>R>D.

REYES vs. *A

;ERSA(IN+ J.:

'he $ur"en rests in the 2rosecution to see to it that the evi"ence of &uilt satisfies the stan"ar" of #oral certaint)"e#an"e" in all cri#inal prosecutions. 'he stan"ar" "e#an"s that all the essential ele#ents of the offense are














esta$lishe" as to leave no roo# for an) "ou$t a$out the &uilt of the accuse". 'he courts shoul" unfailin&l) i#pose thestan"ar" in or"er to prevent in5ustice fro# $ein& perpetrate" a&ainst the accuse".

@n"er review is the "ecision pro#ul&ate" on ,epte#$er %?! %007 $) the Court of Appeals CA/!1 where$) the CAaffir#e" the conviction of petitioner $) the Re&ional 'rial Court R'C/! *ranch %! in (anila% for violations of ,ection an" ,ection 11! Article of Repu$lic Act No. 91 'he Co#prehensive Dan&erous Dru&s Act of %00%/.

Ante,edents

6n Fe$ruar) %<! %00! the 6ffice of the Cit) 2rosecutor of (anila file" two infor#ations char&in& petitioner with ille&a

sale of sha$u an" ille&al possession of sha$u "efine" an" punishe"! respectivel)! $) ,ections an" 11 of R.A. No.91!< to wit4

Cri#inal Case No. 0%<==

'hat on or a$out 3anuar) %0! %00! in the Cit) of (anila! 2hilippines! the sai" accuse"! not $ein& $een sic/ authorie$) law to sell! tra"e! "eliver or &ive awa) to another an) "an&erous "ru&! "i" then an" there willfull)! unlawfull) an"nowin&l) sell 6ne 1/ heat seale" transparent plastic sachet containin& ero point ero two two 0.0%%/ &ra#! of whitcr)stalline su$stance nown as 8,HA*@8 containin& #eth)la#pheta#ine h)"rochlori"e! which is a "an&erous "ru&.

C6N'RAR '6 :A;.=

Cri#inal Case No. 0%<=

'hat on or a$out 3anuar) %0! %00! in the Cit) of (anila! 2hilippines! the sai" accuse"! not $ein& then authorie" $) to possess an) "an&erous "ru&! "i" then an" there willfull)! unlawfull) an" nowin&l) have in his possession an" un"his custo") an" control 6ne 1/ heat seale" transparent plastic sachet containin& ero point ero two four 0.0%=/ &raof white cr)stalline su$stance nown as 8,HA*@8 containin& #eth)la#pheta#ine h)"rochlori"e! a "an&erous "ru&.

C6N'RAR '6 :A;.

After petitioner ple" not &uilt)! trial ensue". 'he su##ar) of the evi"ence of the parties a""uce" at trial follows.

n the #ornin& of 3anuar) %0! %00! a la") confi"ential infor#ant went to the 2olice ,tation ? of the ;estern 2olice

District to report on the "ru&-"ealin& activities of a certain alias *o) later i"entifie" as petitioner/ on (. (apa ,treet!,ta. (esa! (anila. A $u)-$ust tea# of ten #e#$ers!7 inclu"in& 26% >rwin 2a)u#o as "esi&nate" poseur-$u)er!? wafor#e". 26% 2a)u#o then prepare" the necessar) "ocu#ents prior to the operation.9

Fro# the police station! the la") confi"ential infor#ant calle" petitioner $) phone. 'he latter instructe" her to wait on (apa ,treet.10 'hus! the $u)-$ust tea# procee"e" to that area an" arrive" at aroun" =4%0 p.#. of 3anuar) %0!%00.11 26% 2a)u#o an" the la") confi"ential infor#ant arrive" to&ether to wait for petitioner. 'he rest of the $u)-$ustea#! who ha" &one to the area on $oar" an :<00 van!1% too positions near$). 2etitioner ca#e $) five #inuteslater !1< an"! after asin& the la") confi"ential infor#ant whether 26% 2a)u#o was the $u)er! instructe" 2a)u#o tofollow hi# to his house where he tol" 26% 2a)u#o to wait. 'wo other in"ivi"uals! later i"entifie" as Conchita Carlos a3eonilo Flores! were also waitin& for petitioner.1=

@pon &ettin& $ac! petitioner ase" 26% 2a)u#o for the pa)#ent!

1

an" the latter co#plie" an" han"e" the #are"#one) consistin& of three 20.00 $ills all $earin& the initials 8'F8.1 2etitioner then went into a roo# an" returne" withplastic sachet containin& white cr)stalline su$stance that he &ave to 26% 2a)u#o. Receivin& the plastic sachet! 26%2a)u#o place" a #isse" call to 261 (i&uelito Gil! a #e#$er of the $u)-$ust tea#! there$) &ivin& the pre-arran&e"si&nal showin& that the transaction was co#plete". 26% 2a)u#o then arreste" petitioner after i"entif)in& hi#self as aofficer. 26% 2a)u#o recovere" another sachet containin& white cr)stalline su$stance fro# petitionerEs ri&ht han"! an"the #are" #one) fro# petitionerEs ri&ht front pocet.17 'he rest of the $u)-$ust tea# #eanwhile ca#e aroun" an"recovere" two sachets also containin& white cr)stalline su$stance fro# the sofa where Conchita an" 3eonilo weresittin&. 'he $u)-$ust tea# thus also arreste" Conchita an" 3eonilo.1?

*ac at the police station! 26% 2a)u#o place" on the plastic sachet that petitioner ha" han"e" hi# the #arin& 8RR18 an" on the other sachet recovere" fro# petitionerEs ri&ht han" the #arin& 8RR,-%.819 'he seie" ite#s were

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/apr2012/gr_180177_2012.html#fnt1



















































thereafter turne" over to the ;estern 2olice District Cri#e :a$orator) for ea#ination $) 2Insp. 3u")cel (acapa&al!who foun" the ite#s positive for #etha#petha#ine h)"rochlori"e or sha$u.%0

6n the other han"! petitioner "enie" that there ha" $een a $u)-$ust operation! an" clai#e" that he ha" $een fra#e"up.

2etitioner testifie" that he was at his house entertainin& his visitors Conchita an" 3eonilo in the afternoon of 3anuar) %%00%1 that Conchita was sellin& to hi# a sofa $e" for 2?00.00! while 3eonilo was onl) contracte" $) Conchita to "rivthe 5eepne) carr)in& the sofa $e"%% that the three of the# were surprise" when a &roup of ar#e" #en in civilian cloth$ar&e" into his house an" con"ucte" a search! an" arreste" the# that he was also surprise" to see a plastic sachet

when the ar#e" #en e#ptie" his pocet that the plastic sachet "i" not $elon& to hi#%<

that 26% 2a)u#o was nota#on& those who entere" an" searche" his house%= that the three of the# were #a"e to $oar" a van where 261Ru"olf (i5ares "e#an"e" 2<0!000.00 for his release% an" that $ecause he tol" the# he ha" no #one) to &ive to theone of the #en re#are"4 ,i&e! tulu)an na )an an" that the) were then $rou&ht to the police station. %

3eonilo corro$orate" petitionerEs stor).%7

Rulin& of the R'C

As state"! on (a) %<! %00! the R'C foun" petitioner &uilt) $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t! to wit4

@nless there is clear an" convincin& evi"ence that the #e#$ers of the $u)-$ust tea# were inspire" $) an) i#proper

#otive or were not properl) perfor#in& their "ut)! their testi#onies with respect to the operation "eserve full faith an"cre"it.

However lie ali$i! we view the "efense of fra#e up with "isfavor as it can easil) $e concocte" an" is co##onl) use"as a stan"ar" line of "efense in #ost prosecution arisin& fro# violations of the Dan&erous Dru&s Acts.

Havin& esta$lishe" that a le&iti#ate $u)-$ust operation occurre" in the case at $ar! there can now $e no uestion as the &uilt of the accuse"-appellant. ,uch operation has $een consi"ere" as an effective #o"e of apprehen"in& "ru&pushers. f carrie" out with "ue re&ar" to the constitutional an" le&al safe&uar"s! it "eserves 5u"icial sanction.8 2eopof the 2hilippines vs. :owell ,alu"es! et al.! G.R. No. 1==17! 3une 10! %00</

'he accuse" faile" to show an) ill #otive on the part of the police#an to testif) falsel) a&ainst hi#. n"ee"! the

prosecution showe" that the police were at the place of the inci"ent to "o eactl) what the) are suppose" to "oKtocon"uct an operation. 'he portra)al put forwar" $) accuse" an" his lone witness re#aine" uncorro$orate". >vi"ence$e $elieve" #ust not onl) co#e fro# a cre"i$le witness $ut #ust in itself $e cre"i$le.

'he entrap#ent operation pave" the wa) for the vali" warrantless arrest of accuse"! ,ec. a/ of Rule 11< of the Ruleof Court provi"es thus4

8A police officer or private person! without warrant! #a) arrest a person4

a/ when! in his presence! the person to $e arreste" has co##itte"! is actuall) co##ittin&! or is atte#ptin& to co##itan offense

8t has $een hel" that the testi#onies of police officers involve" in a $u)-$ust operation "eserve full faith an" cre"it!&iven the presu#ption that the) have perfor#e" their "uties re&ularl). 'his presu#ption can $e overturne" if clear anconvincin& evi"ence is presente" to prove either two thin&s4 1/ that the) were not properl) perfor#in& their "ut)! or %that the) were inspire" $) an) i#proper #otive.8 2eople of the 2hilippines vs. Re)nal"o Re#arata et al.! G.R. No.1=7%<0! April %9! %00</

'he positive i"entification of appellants $) the prosecution witness shoul" prevail over the for#erEs "enials of theco##ission of the cri#e for which the) are char&e"! since &reater wei&ht is &enerall) accor"e" to the positive testi#oof the prosecution witness than the accuse"Es "enial. Denial! lie ali$i! is inherentl) a wea "efense an" cannot prevaover the positive an" cre"i$le testi#on) of the prosecution witness that the accuse" co##itte" the cri#e. 2eople of 2hilippines vs. >"win *eli$et! (ann) *ano) an" Ronnie Rosero! G.R. No. 91%0! 3ul) %! 1991/%?






















'he "ispositive portion of the "ecision of the R'C rea"s4

;H>R>F6R>! 5u"&#ent is here$) ren"ere" as follows! to wit4

1. n Cri#inal Case No. 0-%<==! fin"in& accuse"! Ro&elio Re)es ) ,a#son! G@:' $e)on" reasona$le"ou$t of the cri#e char&e"! he is here$) sentence" to life i#prison#ent an" to pa) the fine of 200!000.00without su$si"iar) i#prison#ent in case of insolvenc) an" to pa) the costs.

%. n Cri#inal Case No. 0-%<=! fin"in& accuse"! Ro&elio Re)es ) ,a#son! G@:' $e)on" reasona$le"ou$t of the cri#e char&e"! he is here$) sentence" to suffer the in"eter#inate penalt) of 1% )ears an" 1 "a)

#ini#u# to 17 )ears an" = #onths as #ai#u# to pa) a fine of 2<00!000.00 without su$si"iar) i#prison#ein case of insolvenc) an" to pa) the costs.

'he speci#ens are forfeite" in favor of the &overn#ent an" the *ranch Cler of Court! acco#panie" $) the *ranch,heriff! is "irecte" to turn over with "ispatch an" upon receipt the sai" speci#en to the 2hilippine Dru& >nforce#ent

A&enc) 2D>A/ for proper "isposal in accor"ance with the law an" rules.

,6 6RD>R>D.%9

;ith his #otion for reconsi"eration $ein& "enie" $) the R'C! petitioner file" his notice of appeal.<0

Rulin& of the CA

6n appeal! the CA affir#e" the fin"in&s of the R'C thuswise4

A fortiori! viewe" in the li&ht of the fore&oin&! ;e are stron&l) convince" that the prosecution has proven the &uilt of t Appellant for the cri#es char&e" $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t.

;H>R>F6R>! pre#ises consi"ere"! the instant Appeal is D>N>D. 'he challen&e" Decision of the court a uo ishere$) AFFR(>D in toto.

,6 6RD>R>D.<1

'he CA &ave #ore wei&ht to the testi#on) of poseur $u)er 26% 2a)u#o! an" $elieve" the fin"in&s of the la$orator)

ea#ination con"ucte" $) 2Insp. (acapa&al. t reco&nie" the vali"it) of the $u)-$ust operation.

Iss#e

2etitioner is now $efore the Court seein& to reverse the "ecision of the CA upon the sole error that4

'H> H6N6RA*:> C6@R' 6F A22>A:, C6((''>D R>+>R,*:> >RR6R N N6' FNDNG ;6R'H 6FCR>D>NC> 2>''6N>RE, ;'N>,, '>,'(6N CR>A'NG D6@*' 6N 'H> G@:' 6F 'H> 2>''6N>R 6F'H> CR(> CHARG>D N 'H> NF6R(A'6N.

2etitioner wants the Court to &ive cre"ence to his "efense of fra#e-up! an" to $elieve the testi#on) of 3eonilo Floreswho ha" no reason to testif) falsel) a&ainst the arrestin& officers.

R#ing

'he appeal is #eritorious.

n this 5uris"iction! we convict the accuse" onl) when his &uilt is esta$lishe" $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t. Confor#a$l)with this stan"ar"! we are #an"ate" as an appellate court to sift the recor"s an" search for ever) error! thou&hunassi&ne" in the appeal! in or"er to ensure that the conviction is warrante"! an" to correct ever) error that the lowercourt has co##itte" in fin"in& &uilt a&ainst the accuse".<%

Gui"e" $) the stan"ar"! we acuit petitioner.











'he $u)-$ust operation #ounte" a&ainst petitioner resulte" fro# the tip of an unna#e" la") confi"ential infor#ant.,uch an operation! accor"in& to 2eople v. Garcia!<< was 8suscepti$le to police a$use! the #ost notorious of which is ituse as a tool for etortion!8 an" the possi$ilit) of that a$use was &reat. <= 'he suscepti$ilit) to a$use of the operation leto the institution of several proce"ural safe&uar"s $) R.A. No. 91! #ainl) to &ui"e the law enforcers. 'hus! the ,tat#ust show a faithful co#pliance with such safe&uar"s "urin& the prosecution of ever) "ru&-relate" offense.<

'he proce"ural safe&uar"s start with the reuire#ents prescri$e" $) ,ection %1 of R.A. No. 91 relatin& to the custoan" "isposition of the confiscate"! seie"! an" surren"ere" "an&erous "ru&s! plant sources of the "an&erous "ru&s!controlle" precursors an" essential che#icals! instru#ents an" paraphernalia! an" la$orator) euip#ent. 'he provisirelevantl) states4

,ection %1. Custo") an" Disposition of Confiscate"! ,eie"! an"Ior ,urren"ere" Dan&erous Dru&s! 2lant ,ources ofDan&erous Dru&s! Controlle" 2recursors an" >ssential Che#icals! nstru#entsI2araphernalia an"Ior :a$orator)>uip#ent. 4

1/ T!e appre!ending team !aving initia ,#stod$ and ,ontro of t!e dr#gs s!a+ immediate$ after sei<#re an,onfis,ation+ p!$si,a$ inventor$ and p!otograp! t!e same in t!e presen,e of t!e a,,#sed or t!e person=sfrom 3!om s#,! items 3ere ,onfis,ated and=or sei<ed! or hisIher representative or counsel! a representative fro#the #e"ia an" the Depart#ent of 3ustice D63/! an" an) electe" pu$lic official who shall $e reuire" to si&n the copieof the inventor) an" $e &iven a cop) thereof >#phasis supplie"/

'his appeal involves two "istinct "ru&-relate" offenses! na#el)4 ille&al sale of "an&erous "ru&s! an" il le&al possessioof "an&erous "ru&s. 'he successful prosecution of ille&al sale of "an&erous "ru&s reuires4 a/ proof that thetransaction or sale too place! an" $/ the presentation in court as evi"ence of the corpus "elicti! or the "an&erous"ru&s the#selves. 6n the other han"! the prosecution of ille&al possession of "an&erous "ru&s necessitates thefollowin& facts to $e prove"! na#el)4 a/ the accuse" was in possession of "an&erous "ru&s! $/ such possession wanot authorie" $) law! an" c/ the accuse" was freel) an" consciousl) aware of $ein& in possession of "an&erous"ru&s.< For $oth offenses! it is crucial that the 2rosecution esta$lishes the i"entit) of the seie" "an&erous "ru&s in awa) that the inte&rit) thereof has $een well preserve" fro# the ti#e of seiure or confiscation fro# the accuse" until tti#e of presentation as evi"ence in court. Nothin& less than a faithful co#pliance with this "ut) is "e#an"e" of all lawenforcers arrestin& "ru& pushers an" "ru& possessors an" confiscatin& an" seiin& the "an&erous "ru&s an"su$stances fro# the#.

'his "ut) of seein& to the inte&rit) of the "an&erous "ru&s an" su$stances is "ischar&e" onl) when the arrestin& lawenforcer ensures that the chain of custo") is un$roen. 'his has $een the reason for "efinin& chain of custo") un"er

,ection 1$/ of the Dan&erous Dru&s *oar" Re&ulation No. 1! ,eries of %00%! vi4

$/ 8Chain of custo")8 #eans t!e d#$ re,orded a#t!ori<ed movements and ,#stod$ of sei<ed dr#gs or controlleche#icals or plant sources of "an&erous "ru&s or la$orator) euip#ent of ea,! stage+ from t!e time ofsei<#re=,onfis,ation to re,eipt in t!e forensi, a8orator$ to safe6eeping to presentation in ,o#rt fordestr#,tion. ,uch recor" of #ove#ents an" custo") of seie" ite# shall in,#de t!e identit$ and signat#re of t!eperson 3!o !ed temporar$ ,#stod$ of t!e sei<ed item+ t!e date and time 3!en s#,! transfer or ,#stod$ 3eremade in t!e ,o#rse of safe6eeping and #sed in ,o#rt as eviden,e ! an" the final "isposition >#phasis supplie"/

n (allilin v. 2eople!<7 the nee" to #aintain an un$roen chain of custo") is e#phasie"4

As a #etho" of authenticatin& evi"ence! the chain of custo") rule reuires that the a"#ission of an ehi$it $e prece"

$) evi"ence sufficient to support a fin"in& that the #atter in uestion is what the proponent clai#s it to $e. t woul"inclu"e testi#on) a$out ever) lin in the chain! fro# the #o#ent the ite# was pice" up to the ti#e it is offere" intoevi"ence! in such a wa) that ever) person who touche" the ehi$it woul" "escri$e how an" fro# who# it was receivewhere it was an" what happene" to it while in the witnessE possession! the con"ition in which it was receive" an" thecon"ition in which it was "elivere" to the net lin in the chain. 'hese witnesses woul" then "escri$e the precautionstaen to ensure that there ha" $een no chan&e in the con"ition of the ite# an" no opportunit) for so#eone not in thechain to have possession of the sa#e.

;hile testi#on) a$out a perfect chain is not alwa)s the stan"ar" $ecause it is al#ost alwa)s i#possi$le to o$tain! anun$roen chain of custo") $eco#es in"ispensa$le an" essential when the ite# of real evi"ence is not "istinctive an"not rea"il) i"entifia$le! or when its con"ition at the ti#e of testin& or trial is critical! or when a witness has faile" too$serve its uniueness. 'he sa#e stan"ar" liewise o$tains in case the evi"ence is suscepti$le to alteration! ta#per















conta#ination an" even su$stitution an" echan&e. n other wor"s! the ehi$itEs level of suscepti$ilit) to fun&i$ilit)!alteration or ta#perin&Kwithout re&ar" to whether the sa#e is a"vertent or otherwise notK"ictates the level ofstrictness in the application of the chain of custo") rule.

Co&entl)! (allilin v. 2eople is reiterate" in Catuiran v. 2eople!<? 2eople v. Garcia!<9 an" 2eople v. +illanueva!=0a#on&others.

Here! the 2rosecution faile" to "e#onstrate a faithful co#pliance $) the arrestin& law#en of the rule on chain ofcusto"). 'o start with! the fact that the "an&erous "ru&s were inventorie" an" photo&raphe" at the site of arrest uponseiure in the presence of petitioner! a representative of the #e"ia! a representative of the Depart#ent of 3ustice D6

an" an) electe" pu$lic official! was not shown. As such! the arrestin& law#en "i" not at all co#pl) with the furtherreuire#ent to have the atten"in& representative of the #e"ia! representative of the D63! an" electe" pu$lic official sthe inventor) an" $e furnishe" a cop) each of the inventor). nstea"! the recor"s show that 26% 2a)u#o place" the#arin&s of 8RR,-18 on the sachet alle&e"l) receive" fro# petitioner an" 8RR,-%8 on the two sachets alle&e"l) seiefro# petitionerEs han" alrea") at the police station with onl) petitioner present. et! the 2rosecution "i" not also presean) witness to esta$lish that an inventor) of the seie" articles at least si&ne" $) petitioner at that point was prepare"

;e clarifie" in 2eople v. ,anche=1 that in co#pliance with ,ection %1 of R.A. No. 91! supra! the ph)sical inventor)an" photo&raphin& of the seie" articles shoul" $e con"ucte"! if practica$le! at the place of seiure or confiscation incases of warrantless seiure. *ut that was true onl) if there were in"ications that petitioner trie" to escape or resiste"arrest! which #i&ht provi"e the reason wh) the arrestin& tea# was not a$le to "o the inventor) or photo&raphin& atpetitionerEs house otherwise! the ph)sical inventor) an" photo&raphin& #ust alwa)s $e i##e"iatel) eecute" at theplace of seiure or confiscation.

n 2eople v. 2rin&as!=% the non-co#pliance $) the $u)-$ust tea# with ,ection %1! supra! was hel" not to $e fatal for aslon& as there was 5ustifia$le &roun" for it! an" for as lon& as the inte&rit) an" the evi"entiar) value of the confiscate" seie" articles were properl) preserve" $) the apprehen"in& officer or tea#. 'he Court further pronounce" therein thsuch non-co#pliance woul" not ren"er an accuse"Es arrest ille&al or the ite#s seie" or confiscate" fro# hi#ina"#issi$le! for what was of ut#ost i#portance was the preservation of the inte&rit) an" the evi"entiar) value of theseie" or confiscate" articles! consi"erin& that the) were to $e utilie" in the "eter#ination of the &uilt or innocence othe accuse".

However! the o#issions note" herein in"icate" that the ,tate "i" not esta$lish the i"entit) of the "an&erous "ru&salle&e"l) seie" fro# petitioner with the sa#e eactin& certitu"e reuire" for a fin"in& of &uilt.

'o $e sure! the $u)-$ust operation was infecte" $) lapses. Althou&h 26% 2a)u#o "eclare" that he was the one whoha" receive" the sachet of sha$u 8RR,-18/ fro# petitioner an" who ha" confiscate" the two sachets of sha$u 8RR,%8/ fro# petitioner! all of which he ha" then seale"! nothin& #ore to support the fact that the evi"ence thus seie" ha"re#aine" intact was a""uce". n fact! the ,tate "i" not an)#ore esta$lish to who# the seie" articles ha" $eenen"orse" after 26% 2a)u#o ha" place" the #arin&s at the station! an" with whose custo") or safeeepin& the seiarticles ha" re#aine" until their en"orse#ent to 2Insp. (acapa&al for the la$orator) ea#ination. 2resentl)! we can

5ustifia$l) presu#e that the seie" articles ha" re#aine" in the possession of 26% 2a)u#o in view of the testi#on) o2Insp. (acapa&al to the effect that the part) reuestin& the la$orator) ea#ination ha" $een a certain 2olice 6fficer

Alano!=< who# the 2rosecution "i" not at all particularl) i"entif) or present as its witness. n this re&ar"! :a$orator)Report No. D-0?-0!== the report prepare" $) 2Insp. (acapa&al! also state" that the part) reuestin& the con"uct ofthe la$orator) ea#ination was the 86C-,AD-,6'@! 2,-?! ;estern 2olice District.8 Also! the 2rosecution "i" notshow to who# the seie" articles ha" $een turne" over followin& the con"uct of the la$orator) ea#ination! an" howthe seie" articles ha" $een ept in a #anner that preserve" their inte&rit) until their final presentation in court asevi"ence of the corpus "elicti. ,uch lapses of the 2rosecution were fatal to its proof of &uilt $ecause the) "e#onstratethat the chain of custo") "i" not sta) un$roen! there$) raisin& "ou$t on the inte&rit) an" i"entit) of the "an&erous"ru&s as evi"ence of the corpus "elicti of the cri#es char&e".

;e are then not surprise" to "etect other &roun"s for septicis# a$out the evi"ence of &uilt.

Firstl)! 26% 2a)u#o testifie" that the la") confi"ential infor#ant ha" &one to 2olice ,tation ? to report the alle&e" "rusellin& activities of petitioner for the first ti#e in the #ornin& of 3anuar) %0! %00. 'hat report le" to the for#in& of the$u)-$ust tea#!= for purposes of which he prepare" the pre-operation "ocu#ents. His veracit) was suspect! howeverconsi"erin& that his so-calle" 2re-6perationICoor"ination ,heet appeare" to have $een prepare" on the "a) $efore! its "ate 83anuar) 19! %008 "isclose".= 'he "ate of 3anuar) 19! %00 also appeare" in the Certification of Coor"inatio























issue" $) the 2hilippine Dru& >nforce#ent A&enc) in reference to the $u)-$ust operation a&ainstpetitioner.=7 Consi"erin& that the 2rosecution "i" not eplain the "iscrepanc)! the i#pression is unavoi"a$le that the$u)-$ust operation was alrea") set in #otion even $efore the la") infor#ant actuall) #a"e her report a&ainst petition'here$)! his "efense of fra#e-up was $olstere".

,econ"l)! the 2re-6perationICoor"ination ,heet in"icate" that there were ten #e#$ers 8an" three </ others8 thatco#prise" the $u)-$ust tea#.=? et! the 3oint Affi"avit su$#itte" $) the #e#$ers of the $u)-$ust tea# was eecute"an" si&ne" $) onl) si officers eclu"in& even poseur $u)er 26% 2a)u#o hi#self/! na#el)4 261 (i5ares! 261 (arDave +icente! 261 (aurison A$laa! 261 >l#er Cle#ente an" 261 Gil.=9 'he 2rosecutionEs failure to eplain wh) onsi #e#$ers of the $u)-$ust tea# actuall) eecute" an" si&ne" the 3oint Affi"avit #i&ht in"icate that the incri#ination

petitioner throu&h the $u)-$ust operation was pro$a$l) not relia$le./phi/

An"! thir"l)! $oth the 2re-6perationICoor"ination ,heet an" the Certification of Coor"ination reveale" that theconfi"ential infor#ation receive" involve" two suspects of ille&al "ru& tra"e in *acoo"! ,ta. (esa nown as alias *o)an" alias 'oto) 'in&a. 26% 2a)u#o recalle"! however! that the la") confi"ential infor#ant ha" tippe" the police off ona$out alias *o). t see#s fro# such selectiveness that 26% 2a)u#o "eli$eratel) o#itte" the other tar&et an" eroe" onl) on alias *o) petitioner/! which #i&ht su&&est that 26% 2a)u#o was not as relia$le as a poseur $u)er-witness ahe presente" hi#self to $e./phi/

Conviction #ust stan" on the stren&th of the 2rosecutionEs evi"ence! not on the weaness of the "efense the accuse"put up.0 >vi"ence provin& the &uilt of the accuse" #ust alwa)s $e $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t. f the evi"ence of &uiltfalls short of this reuire#ent! the Court will not allow the accuse" to $e "eprive" of his li$ert). His acuittal shoul"co#e as a #atter of course.

%&ERE'ORE! the Court R>+>R,>, an" ,>', A,D> the "ecision pro#ul&ate" on ,epte#$er %?! %007 $) the Coof Appeals an" ACB@', accuse" R6G>:6 ,. R>>, of the cri#es char&e" in Cri#inal Case No. 0-%<== an"Cri#inal Case No. 0-%<=.

'he Court DR>C', the Director of the *ureau of Corrections in (untinlupa Cit) to release R6G>:6 ,. R>>, fro#custo") unless he is "etaine" thereat for another lawful cause an" to report on his co#pliance herewith within five "afro# receipt.

No pronounce#ents on costs of suit.

,6 6RD>R>D

)AVI) vs. PEOPLE

PERALTA+ >.4

For this CourtLs consi"eration is the 2etition for Review on Certiorari 1 un"er Rule = of the 1997 Rules of Civil2roce"ure "ate" April 11! %00? of petitioner Raul Davi"! assailin& the Decision% "ate" Au&ust <1! %007 an"Resolution< "ate" Fe$ruar) %0! %00? of the Court of Appeals CA/ in CA-G.R. CR No. %97=! affir#in& theDecision= "ate" April %7! %00 of the Re&ional 'rial Court! *ranch ! Capas! 'arlac in Cri#inal Cases No. 1?11-1?1%fin"in& petitioner Raul Davi"! &uilt) $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t of violation of ,ection 11! Article of Repu$lic Act R.A.91.

As shown in the recor"s! the followin& are the antece"ent facts4

After receivin& an infor#ation fro# a certain +ictor Garcia that a person was sellin& ille&al "ru&s at :. Corte ,t.! *r&),an 3ose! Concepcion! 'arlac! the ntelli&ence 6peratives of the Concepcion 2olice ,tation! Concepcion! 'arlac!con"ucte" a surveillance on the place fro# (a) %! %00< until 3une %<! %00< when the) applie" for a search warrantwhich was &rante" on the sa#e "a). *efore i#ple#entin& the search warrant! the police officers con"ucte" anothersurveillance fro# 3une %< to 3une %=! %00< "urin& which! it was o$serve" that several stu"ents were &oin& insi"e thepetitionerEs house. t was also "urin& that ti#e that the poseur-$u)er was a$le to $u) shabu #etha#pheta#ineh)"rochlori"e/ fro# the petitioner.





















6n 3une %9! %00<! aroun" 1400 p.#.! the search tea# co#pose" of 26< (ario Flores! 26% Henr) *ala$at! ,261Rustico *asco an" 261 Ro&er 2aras! i#ple#ente" the search warrant with the presence of *aran&a) Captain AntonCanono. 'he search tea#! $efore con"uctin& the search! sou&ht per#ission fro# the petitioner. 'he two-store) househa" two roo#s M one "ownstairs an" the other one upstairs. Accor"in& to petitioner! the roo# "ownstairs was occupi$) his $rother! Rael Davi"! who was not present "urin& the search! an" the roo# upstairs was occupie" $) the for#e

26< Flores foun" si / sachets of #ari5uana an" three </ plastic sachets of su$stance suspecte" to $e sha$u on toof a pa"loce" ca$inet un"erneath the stairs. Durin& that ti#e! appellant was aroun" two %/ #eters awa) in the sala.

'hereafter! the police operatives too pictures of the ite#s searche" an" the $aran&a) captain si&ne" a certificate of

&oo" search. 'he confiscate" ite#s were then turne" over to nvesti&ator ,i#plicio Cunanan of the Concepcion 2olic,tation for investi&ation.

t was reveale" in Che#istr) Report No. D-1=<-%00< of 2olice nspector 3essica R. Builan& that the speci#ens in thethree </ heat-seale" transparent plastic sachets with 8R*-A!8 8R*-*!8 an" 8R*-C8 #arin&s were positive for 0.<%7&ra# of shabu! a "an&erous "ru&! while the speci#en in the si / heat-seale" plastic sachets with #arin&s 8R*-18 to 8R*-8 were positive for <.? &ra#s of #ari5uana.

'hus! appellant was char&e" in the followin& nfor#ations4

Cri#inal Case No. 1?11

'hat on or a$out 1400 oLcloc in the afternoon of %9 3une %00<! at *r&). ,an 3ose! (Ounicipalit) of Concepcion!2Orovince of 'arlac! an" within the 5uris"iction of this Honora$le Court! the sai" accuse" "i" then an" there willfull)!unlawfull) an" cri#inall) possesse" ,i / plastic heat-seale" sachets containin& "rie" #ari5uana leaves wei&hin&#ore or less <.? &ra#sO without $ein& authorie" $) law.

C6N'RAR '6 :A;.

Cri#inal Case No. 1?1%

'hat on or a$out 1400 oLcloc in the afternoon of %9 3une %00<! at *r&). ,an 3ose! (Ounicipalit) of Concepcion!2Orovince of 'arlac! an" within the 5uris"iction of this Honora$le Court! the sai" accuse" "i" then an" there willfull)!unlawfull) an" cri#inall) possesse" three </ plastic heat-seale" sachets containin& (>'HA(2H>'A(N>O

HDR6CH:6RD>! $etter nown as ,ha$u! wei&hin& #ore or less 0.<%7 &ra# without $ein& authorie" $) law.

C6N'RAR '6 :A;.7

@pon arrai&n#ent on Au&ust =! %00<! petitioner! assiste" $) his counsel! plea"e" 8not &uilt)8 on $oth char&es. ?'he tron the #erits ensue"! where the facts earlier state" were testifie" to $) the witnesses for the prosecution! na#el)4 26(ario Flores! ,261 Rustico *asco an" 6fficer 3essica Builan&. 6n the other han"! the "efense presente" thetesti#onies of the petitioner his $rother! Rael Davi"! an" his sister-in-law! :ili$eth Davi"! the su##ar) of which follow

2olice operatives arrive" at the house of the petitioner in the afternoon of 3une %9! %00<. 26< Flores &ra$$e" thepetitioner an" pulle" hi# throu&h his clothes an" announce" their authorit) to search. 'his pro#pte" the petitionerLssister-in-law! :ili$eth Davi"! to &et out of the roo# in or"er to prevent the sai" police#an fro# &ra$$in& the petitioner.avoi" an) i#plantation of evi"ence! petitioner too off his shirt. :ili$eth Davi" su##one" the $aran&a) captain!afterwhich! police#en *asco! Flores an" 2aras con"ucte" the search which laste" for a$out thirt) <0/ #inutes! whilethe other police officer sta)e" outsi"e with the $aran&a) captain.

2olice officers *asco an" 2aras searche" the &roun" floor first an" foun" nothin&. 'hereafter! police officer Floresalle&e"l) saw #ari5uana on top of a ca$inet insi"e the roo# "ownstairs. @pon the "iscover)! the ite# wasphoto&raphe". Afterwar"s! petitioner was ase" a$out the wherea$outs of the shabu. At the ti#e of the search!petitionerLs $rother! Rael Davi"! was not present. Conseuentl)! petitioner was taen to the police station for custo"iainvesti&ation an" "urin& the interro&ation! he was not infor#e" of his ri&ht to counsel.

'he trial court foun" the petitioner &uilt) in its Decision "ate" April %7! %00! the "ispositive portion of which follows4











;H>R>F6R>! fin"in& the accuse" &uilt) $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t of the cri#es of 2ossession of <.? &ra#s of(ari5uana an" 0.<%7 &ra# of #etha#pheta#ineO h)"rochlori"e sha$u/! accuse" is here$) sentence" to suffer thein"eter#inate penalties of 'welve 1%/ )ears P one "a)! as #ini#u#! to Fourteen )ears! as #ai#u#! an" to pa) a fiof 'hree Hun"re" 'housan" 2esos.

,6 6RD>R>D.9

6n appeal! the CA affir#e" the conviction with #o"ifications! the "ispositive portion of its Decision "ate" Au&ust <1!%007 rea"s as follows4

;H>R>F6R>! the Decision of the Re&ional 'rial Court of Capas! 'arlac! *ranch in Cri#inal Cases No. 1?11-1?1%fin"in& accuse"-appellant Raul Davi" ) >rese! G@:' $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t of violation of ,ection 11! Article oR.A. 91 is here$) AFFR(>D with the followin& (6DFCA'6N,4

1/ n Cri#inal Case No. 1?11 for ille&al possession of #ari5uana! he is sentence" to suffer the penalt) of 'wel1%/ ears an" 6ne 1/ "a)! as #ini#u#! to Fourteen 1=/ ears! as #ai#u#! an" to pa) a fine of 'HR>>H@NDR>D 'H6@,AND 2>,6, 2<00!000.00/

%/ n Cri#inal Case No. 1?1% for ille&al possession of sha$u! he is sentence" to suffer the penalt) of 'welve1%/ ears an" 6ne 1/ "a)! as #ini#u#! to Fourteen 1=/ ears! as #ai#u#! an" to pa) a fine of 'HR>>H@NDR>D 'H6@,AND 2>,6, 2<00!000.00/.

Costs "e oficio.

,6 6RD>R>D.10

'he CA! in its Resolution11 "ate" Fe$ruar) %0! %00?! "enie" appellantLs (otion for Reconsi"eration!1% hence! the prespetition where the appellant presente" the followin& issues4

GR6@ND F6R 'H> A::6;ANC> 6F 'H> 2>''6N

'H> C6@R' 6F A22>A:, GRA+>: >RR>D N AFFR(NG ;'H (6DFCA'6N 'H> 2>''6N>RL,C6N+C'6N. 'H> A,,A:>D D>C,6N , N6' N ACC6RDANC> ;'H :A; AND A22:CA*:>3@R,2R@D>NC>! AND F N6' C6RR>C'>D! ' ;:: CA@,> GRA+> N3@,'C> AND RR>2ARA*:>O N3@R

'6 H>R>N 2>''6N>R.

,,@>, 2R>,>N'>D F6R R>,6:@'6N

;H>'H>R 'H> C6@R' 6F A22>A:, >RR>D N G+NG CR>D>NC> '6 'H> '>,'(6N>, 6F 'H>2R6,>C@'6N ;'N>,,>,.

;H>'H>R 'H> C6@R' 6F A22>A:, >RR>D N C6N+C'NG 'H> 2>''6N>R D>,2'> 'H> FA:@R> 6F '

2R6,>C@'6N '6 2R6+> 'HA' 'H> DANG>R6@, DR@G, ,@*(''>D F6R :A*6RA'6R >QA(NA'6N AND 2R>,>N'>D A, >+D>NC> *>F6R> 'H> 'RA: C6@R' ;>R> 'H> ,A(> 6N>, A::>G>D: ,>>D.

;H>'H>R 'H> C6@R' 6F A22>A:, >RR>D N (6DFNG 'H> D>C,6N 6F 'H> 'RA: C6@R' ;HCHF6@ND 'H> 2>''6N>R G@:' 6F A ,NG:> CHARG> 6F +6:A'6N 6F ,>C'6N 11! AR'C:> 6FR>2@*:C AC' N6. 91.

'he petition lacs #erit.











'he ar&u#ents presente" in the petition are purel) factual. 'his is contrar) to what is allowe" $) law when filin& apetition un"er Rule = of the Rules of Court.1< Nevertheless! this Court! upon review of the recor"s of this case! fin"sthat the trial court an" the CALs fin"in&s of facts shoul" $e accor"e" respect.

For a prosecution for ille&al possession of a "an&erous "ru& to prosper! it #ust $e shown that a/ the accuse" was inpossession of an ite# or an o$5ect i"entifie" to $e a prohi$ite" or re&ulate" "ru& $/ such possession is not authorie$) law an" c/ the accuse" was freel) an" consciousl) aware of $ein& in possession of the "ru&. 1=

*ase" on the evi"ence presente" $) the prosecution! it was proven that all the ele#ents for ille&al possession of"an&erous "ru&s are present in this case. 26< (ario Flores! "urin& the search in the house of petitioner! foun" si

sachets of mari1uana an" three </ sachets of shabu! $oth classifie" as "an&erous "ru&s un"er the pertinent law! on tof a pa"loce" ca$inet un"erneath the stairs.

However! petitioner uestions the cre"i$ilit) of the witnesses for the prosecution. He ar&ues that the testi#on) of 26<Flores that he foun" si / tea$a&s of mari1uana an" three </ sachets of shabu re#ains uncorro$orate" as ,261*asco testifie" that he "i" not see 26< Flores when the latter "iscovere" the sai" "an&erous "ru&s. >ven so! this "oenot "i#inish the fact that "an&erous "ru&s were foun" "urin& the search of the house. 'he 6ffice of the ,olicitorGeneral 6,G/! in its Co##ent17 "ate" 6cto$er 1! %00?! was correct in pointin& out that "urin& the operation! it is noincre"i$le that onl) one of the operatives foun" the "an&erous "ru&s $ecause the) were scattere" throu&hout thehouse. 'he 6,G state"4

'he fact that 26< Flores was the onl) one who "iscovere" the ille&al su$stances is not incre"i$le. t #ust $econsi"ere" that "urin& the operation! the police operatives scattere" the#selves throu&hout the house in or"er tocon"uct the search. ,261 *asco searche" the upper roo#! while 26< Flores searche" the lower portion of the housNoteworth)! the testi#onies of ,261 *asco an" 26< Flores 5i$e" on #aterial points! particularl) on the ille&al o$5ectsseie". ,261 *asco corro$orate" 26< FloresL testi#on) that he foun" si / sachets of #ari5uana an" three sachetof sha$u "urin& the search. 1?

2etitioner also clai#s that the prior surveillance $efore the issuance of a search warrant was not clearl) esta$lishe" $the testi#onies of the witnesses. He insists that ,261 *asco testifie" that a surveillance was con"ucte" $) 26< Floran" 261 3oel Canlas fro# (a) %! %00< to 3une %=! %00<! $ut 26< Flores "enie" havin& participate" in thesurveillance an" pointe" to 261 Canlas as the one who con"ucte" the surveillance. Accor"in& to petitioner! suchinconsistenc) in the testi#on) is "a#a&in&. 'his Court fin"s no si&nificance in the sai" inconsistenc) as it is #erel)#inor. ;hat is i#portant is that the) were a$le to esta$lish throu&h their testi#onies that a surveillance in"ee" tooplace $efore an" even after the issuance of the search warrant.

t is a settle" rule that in cases involvin& violations of the Dan&erous Dru&s Act! cre"ence is &iven to prosecutionwitnesses who are police officers for the) are presu#e" to have perfor#e" their "uties in a re&ular #anner! unless this evi"ence to the contrar).%% t #ust $e e#phasie" that their testi#onies in open court are consi"ere" in line with thepresu#ption that law enforce#ent officers have perfor#e" their "uties in a re&ular #anner.%< n the a$sence of proof o#otive to i#pute falsel) a cri#e as serious as violation of the Co#prehensive Dan&erous Dru&s Act! the presu#ptionre&ularit) in the perfor#ance of official "ut)! as well as the fin"in&s of the trial court on the cre"i$ilit) of the prosecutiowitnesses! shall prevail over petitionerEs self-servin& an" uncorro$orate" "enial.%= (oreover! the factual fin"in&s of thetrial court! when affir#e" $) the Court of Appeals! are conclusive an" $in"in& on this Court.%

2etitioner further conten"s that the testi#onies of the "efense witnesses were not consi"ere" otherwise! it woul" hav$een proven that the "an&erous "ru&s foun" on top of the apara&or were plante". t #ust $e re#e#$ere" that the

"efenses of "enial an" fra#e-up have $een invaria$l) viewe" $) this Court with "isfavor for it can easil) $e concocte"an" is a co##on an" stan"ar" "efense plo) in prosecutions for violation of Dan&erous Dru&s Act.% n this case!petitioner was not a$le to present an) concrete or stron& evi"ence that woul" support his alle&ation that he was thevicti# of a fra#e-up asi"e fro# his insinuation that ha" the trial court consi"ere" the testi#onies of the witnesses hepresente"! the sa#e court coul" have inferre" the presence of a set-up or the plantin& of evi"ence on the part of thepolice operatives. n or"er to prosper! the "efenses of "enial an" fra#e-up #ust $e prove" with stron& an" convincin&evi"ence.%7

n clai#in& that the i"entit) of the "ru&s su$5ect of the char&es was not proven $e)on" reasona$le "ou$t! petitionerstates that there was no #arin& of the su$stances seie" i##e"iatel) after the search an" there was no proof that t"ru&s presente" in court were the sa#e "ru&s seie" fro# his house. et a close rea"in& of the recor"s shows theopposite.



























,ection %1! para&raph 1! Article of R.A. 91 provi"es4

,ection %1. Custo") an" Disposition of Confiscate"! ,eie"! an"Ior ,urren"ere" Dan&erous Dru&s! 2lant ,ources ofDan&erous Dru&s! Controlle" 2recursors an" >ssential Che#icals! nstru#entsI2araphernalia an"Ior :a$orator)>uip#ent. M 'he 2D>A shall tae char&e an" have custo") of all "an&erous "ru&s! plant sources of "an&erous "ru&controlle" precursors an" essential che#icals! as well as instru#entsIparaphernalia an"Ior la$orator) euip#ent soconfiscate"! seie" an"Ior surren"ere"! for proper "isposition in the followin& #anner4

1/ 'he apprehen"in& tea# havin& initial custo") an" control of the "ru&s shall! i##e"iatel) after seiure an"confiscation! ph)sicall) inventor) an" photo&raph the sa#e in the presence of the accuse" or the personIs fro# who#

such ite#s were confiscate" an"Ior seie"! or hisIher representative or counsel! a representative fro# the #e"ia an"the Depart#ent of 3ustice D63/! an" an) electe" pu$lic official who shall $e reuire" to si&n the copies of the inventoan" $e &iven a cop) thereof

'he a$ove provision is i#ple#ente" $) ,ection %1 a/! Article of the #ple#entin& Rules an" Re&ulations RR/ ofR.A. No. 91! thus4

a/ 'he apprehen"in& tea# havin& initial custo") an" control of the "ru&s shall! i##e"iatel) after seiure an"confiscation! ph)sicall) inventor) an" photo&raph the sa#e in the presence of the accuse" or the personIs fro# who#such ite#s were confiscate" an"Ior seie"! or hisIher representative or counsel! a representative fro# the #e"ia an"the Depart#ent of 3ustice D63/! an" an) electe" pu$lic official who shall $e reuire" to si&n the copies of the inventoan" $e &iven a cop) thereof4 2rovi"e"! further! that non-co#pliance with these reuire#ents un"er 5ustifia$le &roun"sas lon& as the inte&rit) an" the evi"entiar) value of the seie" ite#s are properl) preserve" $) the apprehen"in&officerItea#! shall not ren"er voi" an" invali" such seiures of an" custo") over sai" ite#s.

'he prosecution was a$le to prove the un$roen chain of custo") of the ite#s seie". As earlier "iscusse"! thewitnesses for the prosecution were a$le to cate&oricall) testif) that the "an&erous "ru&s were foun" in the resi"ence the petitioner "urin& their search. As shown in Che#istr) Report No. D-1=<-%00<! which was i"entifie" an" testifie" o$) 2olice nspector 3essica Ra#os Builan&! the three </ plastic sachets containin& a su$stance was positive for#etha#pheta#ine h)"rochlori"e an" #are" as 8R*-A!8 8R*-*!8 an" 8R*-C8 an" the si / plastic sachets werepositive for #ari5uana an" #are" as 8R*-1!8 8R*-%!8 8R*-<!8 8R*-=!8 8R*-8 an" 8R*-.8%? 'hereafter! as testifie" $)26< Flores! the ite#s were photo&raphe" an" the $aran&a) captain si&ne" a certificate of &oo" search.

'herefore! it is apparent fro# the a$ove "isuisition that the inte&rit) an" evi"entiar) value of the ite#s seie" werewell-preserve". ;hat is of ut#ost i#portance is the preservation of the inte&rit) an" the evi"entiar) value of the seie

ite#s! as it woul" $e utilie" in the "eter#ination of the &uilt or innocence of the accuse".<0 An)wa)! this Court hasconsistentl) rule" that non-co#pliance with the reuire#ents of ,ection %1 of R.A. No. 91 will not necessaril) ren"ethe ite#s seie" or confiscate" in a $u)-$ust operation ina"#issi$le.<1 ,trict co#pliance with the letter of ,ection %1 isnot reuire" if there is a clear showin& that the inte&rit) an" the evi"entiar) value of the seie" ite#s have $eenpreserve"! i.e.! the ite#s $ein& offere" in court as ehi$its are! without a specter of "ou$t! the ver) sa#e onesrecovere" in the $u)-$ust operation.<% Hence! once the possi$ilit) of su$stitution has $een ne&ate" $) evi"ence of anun$roen an" cohesive chain of custo") over the contra$an"! such contra$an" #a) $e a"#itte" an" stan" as proof othe corpus "elicti notwithstan"in& the fact that it was never #a"e the su$5ect of an inventor) or was photo&raphe"pursuant to ,ection %1 1/ of Repu$lic Act No. 91.<<

Anent petitionerLs contention that havin& $een cau&ht in possession of sha$u an" #ari5uana in one occasion! he shouhave $een char&e" with! an" convicte" of! one offense onl)! this Court fin"s it #eritorious.

*efore the enact#ent of R.A. 91! the &overnin& law on "an&erous "ru&s was R.A. =%! which "ifferentiate"re&ulate" "ru&s fro# prohi$ite" "ru&s. t lai" "own "ifferent provisions for possession of re&ulate" an" prohi$ite" "ru@n"er R.A. 91! the "istinction $etween re&ulate" an" prohi$ite" "ru&s has $een re#ove" an" $oth are now classifas "an&erous "ru&s. 'he era"ication of such "istinction was the real intention of the le&islators. As rea" fro# thetranscript of steno&raphic notes of the 'welfth Con&ress on the "eli$eration of R.A. 91! then ,enate *ill No. 1??4

,enator :eviste. An" we are in support of the &oo" sponsorLs conviction to &ive teeth to this new law an" to &o all outa&ainst "ru&s.














@n"er the ol" law R.A. No. =% a classification was provi"e" $etween a prohi$ite" "ru& an" a re&ulate" "ru&. $elieve in the new propose" #easure! there is no "istinction $etween the two cate&ories. An" in lieu of the twocate&ories! the new #easure #erel) provi"es for an all-e#$racin& cate&or) of "an&erous "ru&s.

(a) we now! (r. 2resi"ent! the si&nificance of eli#inatin& the two cate&ories in the ol" law $ecause there #i&ht $ea"verse i#plications if we "o not classif) 8prohi$ite"8 fro# 8re&ulate"8 "ru&s. 'here are instances! for ea#ple! whencancer patient now a# not a "octor $ut ,enator Flavier #i&ht $e a$le to enli&hten us here is allowe" to use wprescription fro# a license" ph)sician re&ulate" "ru&s. (orphine! for ea#ple! for pain illers. How woul" this"eclassification affect this caseS

,enator *ar$ers. ;ell! her point is ver) vali"! (r. 2resi"ent. 'he reason as to wh) un"er R.A. No. =% there was a"istinction $etween 8prohi$ite"8 an" 8re&ulate"8 "ru&s is that this is in consonance with the nternational 'reaties onDru&s un"er the @N Convention of 191! 1971! an" 19??. Now! when we spea of narcotics un"er this treat)! it woul"#ean 8prohi$ite"8 "ru&s. ;hen we spea of ps)chotropic un"er the sa#e convention! it woul" #ean 8re&ulate"8 "ru&n this particular proposal! we "i" not #ae an) "istinction an)#ore. ;h)S *ecause whether these are re&ulate"!whether these are prohi$ite"! these are consi"ere" as "an&erous "ru&s unless authorie" $) law. 'hat a patient! forea#ple! is in nee" of so#e "ru&s! #orphine! for ea#ple! then that woul" $e another stor).<=

,enator De Castro. (r. 2resi"ent! on pa&e <! line <! the ter# use" is 8"an&erous!8 while un"er our present law!Repu$lic Act No. =%! as a#en"e"! the ter# use" is 8prohi$ite".8 (a) we now fro# the sponsor the "istinction$etween the wor"s 8prohi$ite"8 an" 8"an&erous.8

,enator *ar$ers. es! (r. 2resi"ent. @n"er Repu$lic Act No. =%! there is a "istinction $etween prohi$ite" "ru&s anre&ulate" "ru&s. ;hen we spea of prohi$ite" "ru&s! it woul" #ean that there is no prescription nee"e". ;hile in there&ulate" "ru&s! a prescription is nee"e" in or"er to purchase that in" of "ru& fro# the "ru&store.

@n"er the present $ill! (r. 2resi"ent! we re#ove" the "istinction an" we ca#e up with the ter# 8"an&erous "ru&s8instea" of classif)in& these "ru&s into prohi$ite" an" re&ulate" ones. ;h)S *ecause there are prohi$ite" "ru&s thatso#eti#es are also $ein& "ispense" with prescription! lie for ea#ple! #orphine an" opiu#. 'hese coul" $e use" apain relievers. 'here are also re&ulate" ones which $eco#e prohi$ite" "ru&s when we use a proportion which coul" n$e consi"ere" as therapeutic in nature.

,enator De Castro. 'herapeutic an" that inclu"es #ari5uana! (r. 2resi"entS

,enator *ar$ers. 'hat is correct! (r. 2resi"ent! althou&h #ari5uana is not "ispense" in "ru&stores. ;e classif)#ari5uana un"er RA =% as a prohi$ite" "ru&! while un"er this #easure #ari5uana is consi"ere" as a "an&erous"ru&.<

,enator Ca)etano. (r. 2resi"ent! also note that there is no "efinition of 8re&ulate" "ru&8 at least in #) cursor)ea#ination. Has the &oo" sponsor "elete" the provision of the Dan&erous Dru&s Act of 197% or Repu$lic Act No. =where there is a "efinition of 8re&ulate" "ru&S8 An" if so! 5ust want to fin" out wh) this particular "efinition of whatconstitutes a re&ulate" "ru& is not inclu"e" in this $illS

,enator *ar$ers. 'hat is correct! (r. 2resi"ent. n the present #easure! we alrea") "elete" prohi$ite" "ru&s as well are&ulate" "ru&s. ;e ca#e up with one ite# onl) fro# re&ulate"! fro# prohi$ite"! to "an&erous "ru&s. 'hat woul" $e classification now. ;hether it is re&ulate" or prohi$ite"! it is of no #o#ent to us. ;hat is i#portant is that we "efine"an&erous "ru&s.

,enator Ca)etano. No. 'he reason ase" that! (r. 2resi"ent! is! un"er the present law! 8re&ulate" "ru&s8 is "efine"an" the penalties for trans&ression of the reuire#ents of &ettin& a re&ulate" "ru& is "ifferent fro# the trans&ression co##ittin& an) act in relation to what constitutes purel) "an&erous "ru&s.

,o this is the reason a# inuirin& $ecause it is i#portant. Re&ulate" "ru&s per se are not "an&erous "ru&s! re&ulatein the sense that it #a) $e "ispense" $) a certifie" ph)sician or #e#$ers of the #e"ical or "ental profession.








'he onl) trans&ression or penalt) that #a) $e inclu"e" on re&ulate" "ru& is! for instance! if one i#ports re&ulate" "ruwithout the necessar) authorit) fro# the present Dan&erous Dru&s *oar"! an" also the #anufacture as well as the saof the sa#e.

,o that is the reason a# inuirin&! (r. 2resi"ent.

,enator *ar$ers. have with #e here! (r. 2resi"ent! a "efinition of a 8re&ulate" "ru&!8 $ut this is applica$le un"erRepu$lic Act No. =%. @n"er #) proposal! we "elete" the "efinition. ;e concentrate" on "an&erous "ru&s.

,enator Ca)etano. ,o a# correct then that the o#ission is "eli$erate! $ut it "oes not repeal the provision of Repu$li

Act No. =% which is nown as the 8Dan&erous Dru&s Act of 197%!8 vis-a-vis the re&ulate" "ru&sS t "oes not./avvphi/

,enator *ar$ers. (r. 2resi"ent! this propose" #easure is practicall) a repeal of Repu$lic Act No. =%.<

Fro# the a$ove-uote"! it is clear that the "eli$erate eli#ination of the classification of "an&erous "ru&s is the #ainreason that un"er R.A. 91! the possession of an) in" of "an&erous "ru&s is now penalie" un"er the sa#e sectio'he "eli$erations! however! "o not a""ress a case wherein an in"ivi"ual is cau&ht in possession of "ifferent in"s of"an&erous "ru&s. n the present case! petitioner was char&e" un"er two nfor#ations! one for ille&al possession of si/ plastic heat-seale" sachets containin& "rie" mari1uana leaves wei&hin& #ore or less <.? &ra#s an" the other foille&al possession of three </ plastic heat-seale" sachets containin& shabuwei&hin& #ore or less 0.<%7 &ra#. @n"er,ection 11 of R.A. 91! the correspon"in& penalt) for each char&e! $ase" on the wei&ht of the "an&erous "ru&sconfiscate"! is i#prison#ent for twelve 1%/ )ears an" one 1/ "a)! as #ini#u#! to fourteen 1=/ )ears! as #ai#u#!

an" a fine of three hun"re" thousan" pesos 2<00!000.00/. 'he trial court i#pose" a sin&le penalt) of i#prison#ent twelve 1%/ )ears an" one 1/ "a)! as #ini#u#! to fourteen 1=/ )ears! as #ai#u#! an" a fine of three hun"re"thousan" pesos 2<00!000.00/! while the CA #o"ifie" it $) i#posin& the correspon"in& penalt) for each char&e.

A$sent an) clear interpretation as to the application of the penalties in cases such as the present one! this Court shalconstrue it in favor of the petitioner for the su$5ect provision is penal in nature. t is a well-nown rule of le&alher#eneutics that penal or cri#inal laws are strictl) construe" a&ainst the state an" li$erall) in favor of theaccuse".<7 'hus! an accuse" #a) onl) $e convicte" of a sin&le offense of possession of "an&erous "ru&s if he or shewas cau&ht in possession of "ifferent in"s of "an&erous "ru&s in a sin&le occasion. f convicte"! the hi&her penalt)shall $e i#pose"! which is still li&hter if the accuse" is convicte" of two %/ offenses havin& two %/ separate penalties'his interpretation is #ore in eepin& with the intention of the le&islators as well as #ore favora$le to the accuse".

%&ERE'ORE! the 2etition for Review on Certiorari "ate" April 11! %00? of petitioner Raul Davi" is here$))ENIE).

Conseuentl)! the Decision "ate" Au&ust <1! %007 an" Resolution "ate" Fe$ruar) %0! %00? of the Court of Appeals ahere$) A''IR(E) with the (O)I'I*ATION that the penalt) of i#prison#ent for 'welve 1%/ )ears P one 1/ "a)! as#ini#u#! to Fourteen 1=/ )ears! as #ai#u#! an" a fine of 'hree Hun"re" 'housan" 2esos 2<00!000.00/ $ei#pose".

,6 6RD>R>D.







Drug Cases

Documents

Transcript of Drug Cases