RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR., Petitioner, vs.

SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE The power of control and supervision granted to by the Local Government
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent Code and Administrative Code of 1917 does not include nor permit the usurpation of
power duly vested before the courts. Facts showed that transfer by Ambil of Adalim
G.R. No. 175457 July 6, 2011
was attended by evident bias and badfaith. Section 3(e) still applies to the case at
hand even if the act was not one relative to the “granting of licenses and
concessions”. The provision was meant to include officers with such duty to the list
FACTS:
already enumerated therein and not necessarily to provide exclusivity. Furthermore,
Eastern Samar Governor Ruperto Ambil and Provincial warden the fact that Andalim, as the reciepient of the benefit, was a public officer, did not
Alexandrino Apelado were found guilty before the Sandiganbayan for violating preclude application. The act employs the phrase “private party”, which is more
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and comprehensive in scope to mean either a private person or a public officer acting in a
Corrupt Practices Act after Governor Ambil, conspiring with Apelado, ordered the private capacity to protect his personal interest. Thus the verdict by the
release of then criminally-charged and detained mayor Francisco Adalim and had the Sandiganbayan, finding the accused guilty of violating RA 3019 was proper.
latter transferred from the provincial jail to the the governor’s residence.

ISSUES:

1.) Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over a suit where one of the 2
accused has a Salary Grade classified to be cognizable before the lower courts.

2.) Whether or not the transfer of the detainee, who was a mayor, by the governor
was a violation in contemplation of Sec3(e) of RA 3019 in relation to sec2(b) of the
same act.

HELD:

The Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over the suit where one of the 2
accused held a position with a classification of Salary Grade 27. Only when none of
the numerous accused occupies a position with a salary grade “27” or higher can
exclusive jurisdiction befall in the lower courts. Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over
Ambil as provincial governor and so as with Apelado for being a co-principal in the
perpetration of the offense although he had a salary grade of 22.
 RAMON AMPARO Y IBAÑEZ, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE SPO3 Renato Perez (SPO3 Perez) testified that on the day of the incident,
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. he was about to report for work when he noticed a commotion inside a passenger
jeepney. He then saw Alcubar embracing a man later identified as Ignacio, while
G.R. No. 204990, February 22, 2017
pointing a "stainless one[-]foot long double bladed fan knife" at him. He followed
the jeepney and fired a warning shot. SPO3 Perez ordered the other three (3) men to
alight from the jeepney when the other passengers pointed them out as Alcubar's
FACTS:
companions. Later, he arrested Alcubar. Upon frisking the men, he recovered a
Information was filed against Ahmed Alcubar, Roberto Guarino y balisong from Guarino, an improvised kitchen knife from Salmeo, and a fan knife
Capnao, Juanito Salmeo, and Ramon Amparo for robbery. The Information from Amparo.
reads: That on April 26, 2007, in the City of Manila, Philippines, all the accused
Amparo, on the other hand, testified that on April 26, 2007, he was in
conspired and confederated together and helped one another armed with deadly
Carriedo, Quiapo, Manila, working as a parking attendant when a person he did not
bladed weapons and therefore in band, with intent of gain and by means of force,
know arrived and arrested him. Later, he was brought to the Philippine National
violence and intimidation, that is, by boarding a passenger jeepney with Plate No.
Police Anti-Carnapping Unit where he saw Ignacio for the first time
DGM-407 at the corner of C.M. Recto Avenue and T. Mapua Street, Sta. Cruz,
Manila and immediately poked said arms upon Raymond Ignacio, and announced the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 34 rendered a Decision finding the
holdup, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously took, robbed and accused guilty of robbery in band. All the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals.
carried away the Nokia 6680 worth [P]14,000.00, Philippine Currency, of said Amparo, in particular, argued that he and Salmeo should be acquitted since the
Raymond G. Ignacio against his will, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner witnesses for the prosecution did not testify that they performed any act in
in the same amount as aforesaid. furtherance of the robbery. The Court of Appeals rendered its Decision dismissing
the appeal.
The accused were arraigned and they pleaded "not guilty." Raymond Gaa
Ignacio (Ignacio) testified that on April 26, 2007, he was riding a jeepney going to
Lawton when two men boarded the jeepney along T. Mapua Street. One of them sat
ISSUE:
beside him, pointed a knife at him and declared a hold-up. He was ordered to take his
necklace off and hand over his mobile phone. Ignacio then heard a gunshot, causing Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding that
the robbers to be rattled and drop their knives on the jeepney bench. A police officer petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with band.
arrived and ordered the robbers to alight from the jeepney. Four men, later identified
RULING:
as Alcubar, Guarino, Salmeo, and Amparo, were handcuffed and taken to the police
station. Ignacio identified Alcubar as the man who poked a knife at him, and Guarino Robbery is the taking, with the intent to gain, of personal property
as the one who announced the hold-up. belonging to another by use of force, violence or intimidation. Under Article 294 (5)
in relation to Article 295, and Article 296 of the Revised Penal Code, robbery in
band is committed when four (4) or more malefactors take part in the robbery. All
members are punished as principals for any assault committed by the band, unless it
can be proven that the accused took steps to prevent the commission of the crime.
Even if the crime is committed by several malefactors in a motor vehicle on a public
highway, the crime is still classified as robbery in band, not highway robbery or
brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532. It is highway robbery only when it
can be proven that the malefactors primarily organized themselves for the purpose of
committing that crime. In this instance, the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that petitioner was guilty of robbery in band. Ignacio testified on
cross-examination that Guarino announced a holdup, and that Alcubar pointed a
weapon at him, forcing him to take off his necklace and hand over his mobile phone.
Petitioner initially offered a defense of alibi before the trial court. He abandoned this
defense on appeal after the trial court concluded that petitioner's alibi was not enough
to overcome Ignacio's positive identification. He then argued before the Court of
Appeals that while Ignacio might have seen him at the scene of the crime, there was
no evidence of petitioner's exact involvement. His changing defenses, however, only
show the weakness of his arguments. Nevertheless, a conviction stands not on the
weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the of the prosectuion’s evidence. As
discussed, the evidence of the prosecution was strong enough to overcome the
presumption of innocence.
 MICHAEL SAN JUAN y CRUZ, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE a conscious criminal design existing between and among petitioner and accused to
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. commit the said offense. True, petitioner was in the driver’s seat of the parked car on
that fateful day of December 15, 2003, but it could not be deduced that he was even
G.R. No. 177191 May 30, 2011
aware that Pineda had with him two plastic containers containing shabu, nor did he
FACTS: accord any form of assistance to Pineda. According to PO2 Jovenir, these plastic
containers were placed inside a bag and Pineda tried to conceal these under his seat.
Petitioner, together with Pineda and Coderes (accused), was charged with
These facts, standing alone, cannot give rise to a presumption of conspiracy.
the crime of Transporting Illegal Drugs in an Information dated December 16, 2003,
Certainly, conspiracy must be proven through clear and convincing evidence.
which reads:
Indeeed, it is possible that petitioner was telling the truth when he said that he merely
That on or about the 15th day of December 2003, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, met with accused in order to offer the car for sale, as that was his part time business.
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named It bears stressing that conspiracy requires the same degree of proof required to
accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, establish the crime — proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, mere presence at the
without authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously scene of the crime at the time of its commission without proof of cooperation
transport a total of 978.7 grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) a or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one a party to a
dangerous drug[s]. conspiracy. In fine, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden to prove and
establish conspiracy. Necessarily, petitioner should be held accountable only
When arraigned on February 17, 2004, the three accused entered separate pleas of
for his alleged respective participation in the commission of the offense.
not guilty to the offense charged. During the pre-trial, the three accused did not enter
However, we find that the prosecution also failed to adequtely prove petitioner’s
into any stipulation or admission of facts with the prosecution.
participation in the offense charged with moral certainty. The prosecution, in its
quest to establish its claim that these two sachets were actually recovered

ISSUE: from petitioner, even had to propound similar questions to PO2 Jovenir twice
— only to reveal that the latter merely relied on SPO2 Aure’s claim. PO2
Whether or not the honorable appeallate court committed reversible error in
Jovenir did not actually witness that SPO2 Aure seized these two sachets from
admitting and considering the prosecution’s evidence despite the glaring violations
petitioner. Neither was it established that the two sachets were actually marked in
of petitioner’s constiutional rights and R.A. 9165 making such evidence
the presence of petitioner by SPO2 Aure himself.
inadmissible.
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or
other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after

RULING: seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized
contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens
Yes. The prosecution, other than its bare assertions that petitioner and
will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate
accused conspired in transporting the shabu, failed to establish that there was indeed
the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the
time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of
criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.

Long before Congress passed RA 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure
of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on
the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duties, the doctrinal fallback of every drug-
related prosecution. Thus, in People v. Laxa and People v. Casimiro, we held that the
failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts
doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. These
rulings are refinements of our holdings in People v. Mapa and People v. Dismuke
that doubts on the authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by the prosecution's
failure to prove that the evidence submitted for chemical analysis is the same as the
one seized from the accused suffice to warrant acquittal on reasonable doubt.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MORILLA The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum
prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. Morilla and Mayor
G.R. No. 189883 February 5, 2014
Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the dangerous drugs
on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act means
"to carry or convey from one place to another." It was well established during trial
FACTS:
that Morilla was driving the ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was
During a checkpoint, Mayor Mitra, Willie Yang and Ruel Dequilla were driving a Starex van going to Manila. The fact of transportation of the sacks
caught illegally transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride by means of two (2) containing dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of criminal intent,
motor vehicles, namely a Starex van with commemorative plate to read "Mayor" and motive or knowledge.
a municipal ambulance.

During the trial, Mayor Mitra argued that he was without any knowledge of
2) YES, the finding of conspiracy is correct.
the contents of the sacks and explained that he only accommodated the request of a
certain Ben Tan because the latter bought his fishing boat. Likewise, Morilla insisted The finding of conspiracy by both courts is correct. A conspiracy exists
that he thought what he was transporting were wooden tiles and electronic spare when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a
parts together with Dequilla. The other passenger of the ambulance, Yang, in his felony and decide to commit it. To determine conspiracy, there must be a common
defense, did not bother to inquire about the contents of the vehicle as he was merely design to commit a felony. Morilla’s argument that the mere act of driving the
an accommodated passenger of the ambulance. ambulance on the date he was apprehended is not sufficient to prove that he was part
of a syndicated group involved in the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs is
misplaced.
ISSUES:
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together
1) Whether or not intent or knowledge is material in determining the culpability of and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of
an accused in drug cases (NO) the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually inferred from proof of
facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of some
2) Whether or not the finding of conspiracy is correct (YES)
complete whole. In this case, the totality of the factual circumstances leads to a
conclusion that Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport

HELD: the dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of dangerous drugs,
were on convoy from Quezon to Manila. If indeed he was not involved in conspiracy
1) NO, intent or knowledge is not material in determining the culpability of an
with Mayor Mitra, he would not have told the police officers that he was with the
accused in drug cases.
mayor.
 DELA CRUZ vs. PEOPLE charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate the objective of
the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an opportunity to recover for
G.R. No. 200748 July 23, 2014
a second chance at life.

In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs was only in the form
FACTS: of residue on the drug paraphernalia, and the accused were found positive for use of
dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence obtained
Complainants alleged that a certain Ariel Escobedo was picked up by admissible, and the chain of custody intact, the law enforcers should have filed
several unknown male persons believed to be police officers for allegedly selling charges under Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs and, if there was
drugs. Complainants were instructed to proceed to the Gorordo Police Station. They no residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec. 14 (Possession of
met “James” at the Police Station, who demanded from them P100,000.00 which was Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs
later lowered to P40,000.00, in exchange for the release of Ariel. The accused was During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings). Sec. 14 provides that the maximum
nabbed after an entrapment operation was conducted. The accused was later brought penalty under Sec. 12(Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other
to the forensic laboratory where he was required to submit his urine for drug testing. Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) shall be imposed on any person who shall
The test yielded a positive result for presence of dangerous drugs. possess any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous
drugs. Under Sec. 12, the maximum penalty is imprisonment of four years and a fine
of ₱50,000.00. In fact, under the same section, the possession of such equipment,
ISSUE: apparatus or other paraphernalia is prima facieevidence that the possessor has used a
dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Sec. 15.
Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is legal. (NO)
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users,
this Court thus calls on law enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs cases to
HELd: exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the presence of dangerous drugs
isonly and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory test required under Sec.
The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or arrested 15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs.In such cases, to afford the accused a
for any unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under Article II of the law.The chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges for or involving possession of
drug test was in violation of the petitioner’s right to privacy and right against self- dangerous drugs should only be done when another separate quantity of dangerous
incrimination. It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted drugs, other than mere residue, is found in the possession of the accused as provided
and tested for drugs. for in Sec. 15.
This Court takes the opportunity to be instructive on Sec. 11 (Possession of
Dangerous Drugs) and Sec. 15 (Use of Dangerous Drugs) of R.A. No. 9165,
withregard to the charges that are filed by law enforcers. This Court notes the
practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11 in cases where the presence
of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only and solely in the form of residue,
being subsumed under the last paragraph of Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it would
be more in keeping withthe intent of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in
order to rehabilitate first time offenders of drug use, provided thatthere is a positive
confirmatory test result as required under Sec. 15.The minimum penalty under the
last paragraph of Sec. 11 for the possession of residue isimprisonment of twelve
years and one day, while the penalty under Sec. 15 for first time offenders of drug
use is a minimum of six months rehabilitation in a government center. To file