PEOPLE VS ISMAEL - G.R. No.

208093
The police did not mark the seized drugs immediately after they were confiscated from
appellant. They failed to mark the sachet'3 of shabu immediately upon seizing them from the
appellant. According to SPO1 Rodriguez, after finding sachets of shabu in appellant's
possession, he turned the drugs over to the desk officer.

Whether or not the failure to mark immediately the evidence is fatal for the prosecution?
Yes, failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt
on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt.
This requirement must not be brushed aside as a mere technicality. It must be shown that the
marking was done in the presence of the accused to assure that the identity and integrity of the
drugs were properly preserved. Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the
prosecution's case.

DELA CRUZ VS PEOPLE - G.R. No. 200748

the prosecution alleged that after receiving a confidential report from Arnel, their informant, a
'buy-bust' operation was conducted it was Juan de la Cruz whom Arcoy first negotiated (with)
on the purchase and when Arcoy told De la Cruz that he was buying P10.00 worth of marijuana.
De la Cruz instructed Reynaldo Beltran to give one aluminum foil of marijuana which Beltran
got from his pants pocket and delivered it to Arcoy. After ascertaining that the foil of suspected
marijuana was really marijuana, Arcoy gave the prearranged signal to his teammates by
scratching his head and his teammates who were strategically positioned in the vicinity,
converged at the place, identified themselves as NARCOM agents and effected the arrest of De
la Cruz and Beltran. The P10.00 marked bill (Exhibit C-1) used by Arcoy was found in the
possession of Juan de la Cruz together with two aluminum foils and containing marijuana

Appellant assails, as unconstitutional the manner in which the so-called buy-bust operation is
conducted in order to enforce the Dangerous Drugs Act. He stigmatizes it as no different from
seizure of evidence from one's person or abode without a search warrant. He argues that this
procedure is pregnant with opportunities, and gives rise to situations for corrupting our law
enforcers.

Whether or not the buy bust operation is unconstitutional?

NO,
in a buy-bust operation, there is seizure of evidence from one's person without a search warrant,
needless to state a search warrant is not necessary, the search being incident to a lawful arrest.
[13]
A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense. [14] It is a
matter of judicial experience that in the arrest of violators of the Dangerous Drugs Act in a buy-
bust operation, the malefactors were invariably caught red-handed.[15] There being no violation of
the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure, the confiscated articles are
admissible in evidence.

PEOLE VS PADUA - G.R. No. 174097

Accused-appellant asserts that the police officers failed to account for the chain of custody of the
seized items alleged to be shabu. He questions the non-presentation as witness of the alleged
investigator, the officer on duty who received the specimen together with the request for
laboratory examination from PO2 Aguilar. He maintains that the specimen, which PO2 Aguilar
turned over to Forensic Chemist Rivera-Dagasdas, may no longer be the same specimen taken
from him by PO2 Aguilar.

WHETHER OR NOT THE NON-PRESENTATION OF WITNESS BROKE THE CHAIN OF

CUSTODY?

No,

The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1 Grafia, the evidence custodian,
and PO3 Alamia, the officer on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of
presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has
the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to
present as witnesses.

What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is proof
of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit: (1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor, which the prosecution has satisfactorily established. The prosecution satisfactorily
proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented in court the evidence of corpus delicti.30
SARAUM

not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There
is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such
requirement

Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct
a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance therewith is not
fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 19 While
nowhere in the prosecution evidence show the "justifiable ground" which may excuse the police
operatives involved in the buy-bust operation from making the physical inventory and taking a
photograph of the drug paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized, such omission shall not render
Saraum's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence. Said
"justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of Saraum to
specifically challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of
the subject drug paraphernalia before the trial court. He cannot be allowed too late in the day to
question the police officers' alleged non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on
appeal.20
Whether or not the non-compliance to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items constitute
an evidence inadmissible?
NO,
the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised because it established the crucial link
in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were first discovered until they
were brought to the court for examination. Even though the prosecution failed to submit in
evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia, this will not render
Saraum's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. There is substantial compliance
by the police as to the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items.

PEOPLE VS POSADA - G.R. No. 194445

In the said information, the accused-appellants were charged for selling 12 pieces of transparent
sealed plastic sachet of shabu. However, based on the evidence which the prosecution adduced,
Emily sold to PO1 Area one sachet of shabu, which was worth ₱250.00. Then, after she handed
the one sachet of shabu to the poseur-buyer, Emily received additional 12 sachets of shabu from
her husband Roger and when PO1 Area informed the couple of the buy-bust, Emily had in her
possession the 12 sachets of shabu.54 Subsequently, the confiscated sachets of shabu were
marked. The one sold to PO1 Area was marked with "R", while the 12 sachets of shabu Roger
handed to Emily before their arrest were marked as "R-1" to "R-12".55
The unfortunate fact of this case is that rather than separately charging Emily for the sale of the
one sachet of shabu and charging both Emily and Roger for possession of the 12 sachets
of shabu, the public prosecutor lumped the charges together to sale of 12 sachets of shabu. This
is wrong. The Information is defective for charging the accused-appellants of selling 12 sachets
of shabu when, in fact, they should have been charged of selling one sachet of shabu and
possessing 12 sachets of shabu. From the evidence adduced, Emily and Roger never sold the 12
sachets of shabu. They possessed them. Thus, they should have not been convicted for selling the
12 sachets of shabu.

WHETHER OR NOT THE SALE OF 12 SACHET OF SHABU WAS ESTABLISHED?

NO, while the prosecution was able to prove the sale of one sachet of shabu, it is patently clear
that it never established with moral certainty all the elements of illegal sale of the 12 sachets
of shabu. And failure to show that indeed there was sale means failure to prove the guilt of the
accused for illegal sale of drugs, because what matters in the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs is to show proof that the sale actually happened, coupled with the presentation
in court of corpus delicti.63 Here, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the sale of the
12 sachets of shabu and also to prove that the 12 sachets of shabu presented in court were truly
the subject matter of the sale between the accused-appellants and PO1 Area.

PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ - G.R. No. 170837 (LAGMAN)

SPO4 Lasam presented the search warrant and introduced the raiding team to Henny Gatchalian,
Dexter's sister, and Dexter's children. When asked where the owners of the house were, Henny
responded that her brother and his wife had just left. In their presence and that of the
two kagawads, the team searched the master's bedroom and found the following stashed inside
the second deck of a wooden cabinet: 1) a brick of dried suspected marijuana wrapped inside
newsprint; 2) two plastic sachets of suspected shabu; 3) three pieces of aluminum foil; 4) a
colored green plastic lighter; and 5) a small transparent plastic bag. The raiders then prepared an
inventory4 of the articles seized, a copy of which was handed to Henny. After photos of the
confiscated articles were taken, they were placed in a plastic bag and turned over to SPO4
Lasam, who submitted the same to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 2, Camp Alimanao,
Tuguegarao, Cagayan, for forensic examination.5
Dexter appealed his conviction to this Court, docketed as G.R. Nos. 162542-43, praying for the
reversal of the judgment. He claimed that the search warrant had been unlawfully implemented
and that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether or not the evidence seized is admissible as evidence?

Yes,
 it is now too late in the day for appellant to object to the admissibility of the evidence seized
pursuant to the search warrant. Though he seasonably objected after the prosecution formally
offered its evidence, his objection was not based on constitutional grounds, but rather on the
ground that he was not in actual possession of the premises at the time the search was conducted
The fact that appellant was not in his residence when it was searched nor caught in flagrante
delicto possessing the illicit drugs and paraphernalia does not dent the case of the prosecution. As
a matter of law, when prohibited and regulated drugs are found in a house or other building
belonging to and occupied by a particular person, the presumption arises that such person is in
possession of such drugs in violation of law, and the fact of finding the same is sufficient to
convict. Otherwise stated, the finding of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia in the house owned
by the appellant raised the presumption of knowledge and, standing alone, was sufficient to
convict.

It was held, however, that "a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is
almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain."27 The arresting officers’ failure to
conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the items seized from De Jesus will not render
his arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible in evidence as they were able to
nonetheless preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the said items.

PEOPLE VS TRINIDAD - G.R. No. 199898

the group proceeded to the residence of appellant. They wereaccompanied by the DOJ and media
representatives together with the local barangayofficials. Upon reaching appellant’s house, the
raiding team knocked at his door and identified themselves as police officers from the Naga City
Police Office and informed him that they are executing the search warrants issued by Judge
Jaime Contreras. They told appellant that they have witnesses with them, and read to him the
contents of the warrants and apprised him of his constitutional rights.17 PO2 Quintin Tusara took
picturesof everything that transpired while the operatives were executing the warrants. 18

When appellant was asked to produce the items enumerated in the search warrant, if indeed he
really had them, appellant voluntarily presented the items which he took under his pillow. The
items consisted of nine and a half (9 ½) bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves sealed with
packaging tape, two (2) big bricks of suspected dried marijuana leaves sealed with packaging
tape, four (4) medium sizecubes of suspected dried marijuana leaves placed inside the small
transparent plastic sachet, and eighteen (18) pieces of small cubes of suspected dried marijuana
leaves placed inside the small transparent plastic sachet.19 Also found were seventy-seven (77)
pieces of empty transparent plastic sachets. SPO1 Aguilar, placed his initial, "FBA," in the said
items.

Issue:

The trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime charged despite the
prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It must be emphasized that the finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building
owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession
thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.40 Here, accused-appellant failed to present
any evidence to overcome such presumption. He merely insisted that he was framed and had no
knowledge of where the prohibited drugs came from. In the absence of any contrary evidence, he
is deemed to be in full control and dominion of the drugs found in his house.

PEOP LE VS ZARAGOZA - G.R. No. 223142

During the conduct of the search at the living room on the second floor of the house, Saul found
inside the bedroom and beside the bed of Santos several used and unused foil strips either
crumpled or rolled, the size of a cigarette stick. The foil strips,18 numbering fourteen, were found
inside a baby powder container.19 He also found unused small plastic sachets.20 Saul placed the
foil and plastic sachets on the center table in the living room. When Saul frisked Santos, he found
marijuana leaves wrapped in paper on the right pocket of his pants. Saul informed Santos of his
constitutional rights and placed the marijuana leaves on top of the center table. Saul searched the
rooms on the second floor but found nothing. From a trash can in the kitchen, Saul found used
small transparent sachets which he also placed on the center table. Loquinario-Flores, who was
caught on video selling to the informant aluminum foil to be used with drugs, and two minor
children were found on the first floor of the house. The children admitted that they were part of a
gang in the area.

THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO
THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO PROVE THE
INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED DRUGS.
It must be emphasized that the finding of illicit drugs and paraphernalia in a house or building
owned or occupied by a particular person raises the presumption of knowledge and possession
thereof which, standing alone, is sufficient to convict.39 The truth that the strips of aluminum foil
were found in the house of Santos and the marijuana in his body, had not been successfully
controverted by him. In fact, there was but the lame defense of frame-up offered by Santos to
overcome the presumption.

Santos asserted that the search warrant was only for an undetermined amount of shabu; thus, the
discovery of the incriminating items other than that described in the warrant must result from
bodily search or seized in plain view to be admissible in evidence.49

US VS GAN LIAN - G.R. No. 11772

The appellant in this case was charged in the information just referred to with six others. At the
close of Government's case five of the accused were acquitted on motion of counsel for the
defendants on the ground that the evidence failed to show their guilt. One of the accused, Ko
Seng, pleaded guilty and he was duly convicted and sentenced in accordance with law. The
appellant pleaded not guilty; and, after trial, was convicted and sentenced to one year's
imprisonment, to pay a fine of P2,000 and one-seventh of the
costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

It appears that the appellant was the owner of a building located at No. 317 Ilang-Ilang Street in
which he conducted the business of manufacturing sacks. The superintendent and manager of
that business was the defendant, Ko Seng, whom we have referred to as having pleaded guilty.
On the 29th of February, 1916, several police officers raided the premises and found a
considerable quantity of cocaine and morphine hidden away in a certain room among a mass of
sacks. Arrests were made and after preliminary investigation, the persons already mentioned,
including the appellant, were charged with the illegal possession of morphine and cocaine with
the result heretofore stated.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The particular point in controversy is whether or not the appellant knew of the presence of the
opium in his building and among his sacks. The reason for this contention lies on the fact that,
under the law of the Philippine Islands, when a prohibited drug is found on given premises the
owner thereof, if he is in possession, is presumed to know of its presence there and, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, will be held to be in possession of the opium with intent to
possess. While it is admitted that the opium was found in the premises of the appellant,
knowledge that it was there is denied. The only question in the case, therefore, is to determine
whether the accused knew that the opium was in his building prior to the time it was discovered
by the police.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
The Government offered several witnesses. Mr. Larew testified that he was a patrolman serving
on the police force of the city of Manila; that he was one of the party who raided the appellant's
premises at the time referred to in the information. He stated that none of the persons accused of
the commission of the crime were present in the room at the time the opium was discovered. He
said that all of the accused declared to him on being arrested that the contraband belong to Ko
Seng. His testimony in no way connects the appellant with the prohibited drugs, except that it
was found in his building. His evidence is typical of that of the other raiders except Sergeant J. J.
Sullivan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

J. J. Sullivan, a sergeant of police, also testified for the prosecution. In his direct examination he
said that the appellant told him that the drugs belonged to Ko Seng. On cross-examination,
however, he testified as follows: "Go Lian Po stated, when we made the raid there, that he knew
that the drug was hidden up there in his premises, and then he said that Ko Seng was the owner
of it." He also stated in response to a question by counsel for the appellant that the appellant did
not state to him that Ko Seng told him the drugs were hidden there. He maintained that Gan Lian
Po told him in Spanish that he knew the drugs were hidden on his premises. The words which the
witness declared the appellant used from which he inferred that he knew that the drugs were
hidden on his premises were these: " Si, señor, mi sabe morphine." The witness declared that the
appellant made the statement to him at the police station. He asserted that the first statement of
the appellant was made to him before he knew that he was
arrested.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The appellant denied on the stand that he had knowledge that the drugs were in his building; and
that they must have been secretly placed there by his
employees.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We do not believe that the evidence shows the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
While it is true that, as a matter of law, when opium is found in a house or other building
belonging to and occupied by a particular persons, the presumption arises that such person is in
possession of such prohibited drug in violation of law, and the fact of finding the opium on his
premises, together with the presumption referred to, is sufficient to convict, he may escape a
conviction by showing to the satisfaction of the trial court that the opium was placed on his
premises by some other person or persons without his knowledge or consent. The finding of the
drugs in the building owned by the appellant and hidden under sacks belonging alone, was
sufficient to convict. The appellant, however, accepted the opportunity offered by the law to
rebut the presumption of knowledge and sought to establish his innocence thereof. He testified,
as a witness in his own behalf, that, until the moment of the raid, he had no knowledge whatever
of the presence of the drugs on his premises. He declared also that the business was under the
control and superintendence of his foreman, Ko Seng, and that he placed the drugs in the place
where they were found, concealing from the appellant the fact that they were there. The showed
also that he had a considerable number of employees who occupied the building and that the
circumstances afforded every opportunity for the concealment of the opium in or about his
premises without the possibility of his knowing of its presence. He denied that he said to
Sergeant Sullivan that he knew the opium was there before the raid was
made.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Except for the testimony of Sergeant Sullivan there would be no evidence of knowledge except
the presumption to which we have referred. A careful reading of the testimony of Sergeant
Sullivan, together with that of the appellant and his witnesses, leads us to the conclusion that
there was a confusion in the mind of the sergeant when he was giving his testimony. The
appellant admits that he told the sergeant that he knew the opium was there, but insists that, at
the time of making that statement, he also told the sergeant that he obtained knowledge of that
fact only after the raid had been made, stating to him that, while the officers were searching the
room in which the drugs were found, his foreman, Ko Seng, ran to his office and told him that
there were morphine and cocaine in the room where the officers were searching. The sergeant
seems to have taken the statement to mean that he knew of the presence of the morphine in his
premises before the raid took place. The only difference between the testimony of the sergeant
and that of the appellant relates to the time when the latter obtained his information, the appellant
insisting that he stated that he obtained the knowledge after the raid had begun and the sergeant
maintaining that he told him that he had that knowledge prior to the raid. The inability of the
sergeant to speak Chinese and the ignorance of English of the appellant, and the ignorance of
both of the Spanish language, in which their conversation were carried on, rendered it very easy
to obtain false impressions as to what either of them said; and, where the misunderstanding
related to a matter concerning which it was especially difficult for one to express himself in a
language which he knew only slightly, it was very natural that mistakes and misunderstandings
resulted. Apart from the natural disinclination of the appellant to admit a fact which would aid
very materially in sending him to jail, we are of the opinion that the testimony as a whole with
respect to the knowledge of the appellant lacks that cogency and clearness which ought to
characterize the evidence in a criminal case. It is not altogether clear, even if we accept the
testimony of Sergeant Sullivan, that the appellant meant to say that he knew the drugs were in his
premises prior to the raid. When the sergeant asked him if he knew that fact the only answer he
got was " Si, señor, mi sabe morphine." This is far from meaning necessarily that he knew the
drugs were on his premises. The words might easily be taken to mean that he was acquainted
with morphine; that he knew it as a substance or a drug; and given the ignorance of the appellant
of the language which he was then using, for he was using both Spanish and English, we do not
believe that the statement is sufficient to warrant the finding that he knew the drugs were on his
premises prior to the raid.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

US VS TAN SENK KI - G.R. No. 9783

two policemen of the city of Manila entered a building at No. 109 Calle Rosario, and made a
search for opium and other evidence of a violation of the Opium Law. They entered a room in
said building and there found the defendant. Said policemen testified that they found a strong
odor of opium, indicating that there were some persons in said building smoking opium. They
testified that they found that the hands of the defendants and his clothing bore stains of opium.
They also found stains of opium upon the bed or a board that was used for a bed by the
defendant.
WHETHER OR NOT THE STAINS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS POSSESSION OF OPIUM?

A mere stain upon the clothing or hand of an individual, caused by some particular substance,
certainly cannot sustain the charge that he was at that time in possession of that substance. We do
not believe that because a man's hands or clothing are stained with earth, that he can be charged
with having in his possession real estate. The law specifically provides the punishment for one
who has "in his possession or under his control" opium

PEOP LE VS GALICIA - G.R. No. 218402

On February 10, 2006, around 200 men under the command of Supt. Acierto from the joint
forces of the Philippine National Police (PNP) AIDSOTF, Special Operations Unit (SOU),
Special Action Force (SAF), Traffic 1Y1anagernent Group (TMG), and Scene of the Crime
Operative (SOCO), joined by members of the media and representatives from the Department of
Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), raided the Mapayapa Compound to serve Search
Warrant No. 4271-06 against several persons who were alleged to have been engaged in selling
and possessing dangerous drugs and shabu paraphernalia as well as maintaining a drug den
inside the said compound. More than 300 persons were arrested in the raid, 212 of whom were
charged in court for various violations under RA 9165. Appellant was one of the persons arrested
and charged with the following violations: maintenance of a drug den in violation of Section 6,
RA 9165; illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia in violation of Sections
11 and 12 respectively, RA 9165; and use of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 15, RA
9165.

compound into different target areas.£a⩊phi£ Assigned to implement the search warrant in Target
There were numerous shanties inside the compound requiring the raiding team to divide the

No. 8 was the team of PO2 Roberto Beascan8 (PO2 Beascan), SPO2 Robe1to Agbalog (SPO2
Agbalog), P/Insp. Ancieto Pertoza9 (P/Insp. Pertoza) and P/Supt. Melecio M. Buslig, Jr. When
the team entered the target area, persons found inside scampered away. P/Insp. Pertoza presented
the search warrant to appellant who was then found inside the shanty designated as Target No. 8.
together with his pregnant wife. Appellant attempted to flee but the team was able to place him
under control. The team then proceeded to search the premises.

Appellant and his wife were inside the shanty during the search. Appellant was sitting in front of
a drug paraphernalia when the team started to conduct its search. In the course of their search,
the team found appellant's driver's license inside a wallet found in the sala. The team discovered
that the address of the appellant as stated in his driver's license was F. Soriano St., Sto. Tomas,
Pasig City, which was the same as the address of Target No. 8. The team likewise noticed that
the appellant had a picture of himself inside the house although the same was not seized since it
was not listed in the search warrant. When interviewed by the team, appellant admitted that he
was the own.er of Target No. 8 although this admission was made without the presence of
counsel.
Issue:
the RTC erroneously convicted him in view of the fact that the prosecution foiled to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt in all the offenses charged.

It is clear from the above that the Section 15 does not apply when a person charged with
violation of Section 15. A1ticle II, RA 9165 on use of dangerous drugs, is also found to have
possession of such quantity of drugs provided under Section 11 of the same law. This means that
appellant may not be charged separately of violation of Section 11 on illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and of Section 15 on use of dangerous drug since it is clear from the above that
the provisions of Section 11 shall apply. Illegal possession of dangerous drugs absorbs the use of
dangerous drugs. This is especially true in this case since appellant was not caught in the act of
using drugs. Instead he was caught in the act of possessing drugs and drug paraphernalia. For this
reason, the Court dismisses Criminal Case No. 14823-D against appellant on use of dangerous
drugs as the same is absorbed by Section 11 on illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
the Court finds that the prosecution failed to clearly establish that the appellant was guilty of
violation of maintenance of a drug den.
The prosecution failed to allege and prove an essential element of the offense - that dangerous
drugs were being sold or used inside the shanty located at Target No. 8.

CORONEL

Coronel, Permejo, and Villafuerte were apprehended after trying to escape out of the
window.16 They were brought back to the subject building, where the contents of the search
warrant was read to them.17 Thereafter, Barangay Kagawad Oga Hernandez (Barangay Kagawad
Hernandez), Herald Santos (Santos), Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasay City Angel Marcos
(Atty. Marcos), and DZAR Sunshine Radio Reporter Jimmy Mendoza (Mendoza) arrived, and
the search was conducted in their presence.18

During the search, the team recovered, among others, transparent plastic sachets, aluminium
foils, containers of white crystalline substance and white powdery residue, disposable lighters,
improvised plastic scoops, a total amount of ₱580.00 in assorted bills, and ₱165.00 in coins.19

Coronel, Permejo, Villafuerte, and Olivarez were arrested and apprised of their constitutional
rights.20 The confiscated items were also inventoried, photographed, and marked in their
presence, as well as in the presence of the Barangay officials and the Department of Justice and
media representatives.21

The sec. 15 of RA 9165 was proved beyond reasonable doubt but they appeal for violation of
sec. 7 of RA 9165
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONERS IN
VIOLATION OF SEC. 7 OF RA 9165
Respondent apparently maintains that because the petitioners' drug tests were conducted right
after their arrest, it was proven that drugs were used at the drug den itself. Moreover, the use of
drugs at a drug den automatically implies that the drug users were aware of the nature of the
place as a drug den before visiting it.

THE COURT SAID:

the drug test results sufficiently proved that petitioners had used drugs some time before their
arrest. However, assuming that petitioners were, in fact, at the alleged drug den before their
arrest, there was no showing how long petitioners were at the alleged drug den, or how long the
drugs had been in their system. In other words, there is no basis to assume that petitioners used
drugs at the moment immediately before arrest, and thus, at the location of the arrest.

The crime of knowingly visiting a drug den under Article II, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9165
carries with it a minimum penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one (1) day, and a maximum
of 20 years. It is not to be taken so lightly that its elements can be presumed to exist without any
effort to show them. Given the dearth of evidence in this case, we are constrained to acquit
petitioners of this particular charge

PADUA
Padua subsequently filed a Petition for Probation15 dated February 10, 2004 alleging that he is a
minor and a first-time offender who desires to avail of the benefits of probation under
Presidential Decree No. 96816 (P.D. No. 968), otherwise known as "The Probation Law of 1976"
and Section 70 of Rep. Act No. 9165. He further alleged that he possesses all the qualifications
and none of the disqualifications under the said laws.

while the provisions of R.A. 9165, particularly Section 70 thereof deals with Probation or
Community Service for First- Time Minor Offender in Lieu of Imprisonment, the Court is of the
view and so holds that minor Michael Padua y Tordel who was charged and convicted of
violating Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165, cannot avail of probation under said section in view of
the provision of Section 24 which is hereunder quoted:

"Sec. 24. Non-Applicability of the Probation Law for Drug Traffickers and Pushers. – Any
person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty
imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or Presidential
Decree No. 968, as amended." (underlining supplied)
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR PROBATION
OF PADUA?

NO,
The law is clear and leaves no room for interpretation. Any person convicted for drug trafficking
or pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed, cannot avail of the privilege granted by the
Probation Law or P.D. No. 968. the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that the intention of
the legislators in Section 24 of Rep. Act No. 9165 is to provide stiffer and harsher punishment
for those persons convicted of drug trafficking or pushing while extending a sympathetic and
magnanimous hand in Section 70 to drug dependents who are found guilty of violation of
Sections 1132 and 1533 of the Act. The law considers the users and possessors of illegal drugs as
victims while the drug traffickers and pushers as predators.

PEOPLE VS ONG

Appellants’ conviction is based on the lone testimony of SPO1 Gonzales. He was the designated
poseur-buyer in the team formed for the buy-bust operation. But a careful reading of his
testimony will reveal that he was not privy to the sale transaction that transpired between the
CI and appellant William Ong, the alleged pusher. It is beyond contention that a contract of sale
is perfected upon a meeting of the minds of the parties on the object and its price.

WHETHER OR NOT THE TESTIMONY OF SPO1 GONZALES IS A VALID EVIDENCE?

NO,
In the case at bar, the prosecution evidence about the buy-bust operation is incomplete. The
confidential informant who had sole knowledge of how the alleged illegal sale of shabu started
and how it was perfected was not presented as a witness. His testimony was given instead by
SPO1 Gonzales who had no personal knowledge of the same. On this score, SPO1 Gonzales’
testimony is hearsay and possesses no probative value unless it can be shown that the same falls
within the exception to the hearsay rule.33 To impart probative value to these hearsay statements
and convict the appellant solely on this basis would be to render nugatory his constitutional right
to confront the witness against him, in this case the informant, and to examine him for his
truthfulness.34 As the prosecution failed to prove all the material details of the buy-bust
operation, its claim that there was a valid entrapment of the appellants must fail.
ACOSTA
Alfredo Salucana (Salucana) went to the Gingoog City Police Station to report a mauling
incident where Acosta purportedly hit him with a piece of wood. He also reported that Acosta
was illegally planting marijuana.
The police officers then rushed towards Acosta and arrested him before he entered his home.
After the arrest, SPO4 Legaspi found thirteen (13) hills of suspected marijuana plants planted
beneath the "gabi" plants just outside Acosta's home, and around a meter away from where he
was arrested.
Acosta denied the charges against him and maintained that the accusations hurled against him
were all fabricated.8 He likewise argued that the seized marijuana plants are inadmissible in
evidence as the "plain view" doctrine is not applicable.9 Acosta argued that the discovery was not
inadvertent because it was Salucana who pointed out the marijuana plants to the police. 1
WHETHER OR NOT
it could not be gainsaid that the discovery was inadvertent when the police officers already knew
that there could be marijuana plants in the area. Armed with such knowledge, they would
naturally be more circumspect in their observations. In effect, they proceeded to Acosta's abode,
not only to arrest him for the mauling incident, but also to verify Salucana's report that Acosta
was illegally planting marijuana. Thus, the second requisite for the "plain view" doctrine is
absent. Considering that the "plain view" doctrine is inapplicable to the present case, the seized
marijuana plants are inadmissible in evidence against Acosta for being fruits of the poisonous
tree.

AMERIL

During their conversation, the informant showed Ameril the boodle money. Ameril then went
upstairs to his apartment. When he came back, Ameril gave the three (3) packs of shabu to the
poseur-buyer who, in turn, handed him the boodle money.

The poseur-buyer immediately gave the prearranged signal by touching his head alerting the
police officers to come forward to arrest Ameril. PO3 Pandong and PO2 Salazar rushed to where
Ameril and the poseur-buyer were and announced that they were policemen. Ameril attempted to
flee by entering his apartment but was caught at the third floor before he could open the door of
his unit. The police officers informed Ameril of his constitutional rights and the reason for his
arrest. PO2 Ilagan recovered the three (3) packs of shabu, while PO3 Salazar recovered the
boodle money.
Thereafter, the seized packets were marked "BB-MA-1" to "BB-MA-3." The team brought
Ameril and the seized evidence to the CIIB and the necessary records were entered in the police
blotter. The confiscated drugs were turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory where its contents
were tested. The chemistry report showed the contents of three (3) sachets resulted positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.

WHETHER OR NOT THE CONVICTION WAS BASED ON THE GROUNDS OF

REASONABLE DOUBT?

YES

In cases involving illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements:
(1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and its payment

The inventory and photography

requirement
the importance of complying with the required procedures of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as well as
cases showing that strict compliance may be excused if the deficiency is recognized and
explained by the prosecution to prove that the integrity of the seized drugs has been preserved.

While the evidence on record shows that the packets of shabu were indeed marked, we reiterate
that nothing shows when and where the marking was done. In addition, no evidence was ever
presented to show compliance by the police officers with the mandate of Section 21 (1) of R.A.
9165.

MALILIN VS PEOPLE - G.R. No. 172953

his wife, that prior to the discovery of the two filled sachets petitioner was sent out of his house
to buy cigarettes at a nearby store. Equally telling is the testimony of Bolanos that he posted
some of the members of the raiding team at the door of petitioner's house in order to forestall the
likelihood of petitioner fleeing the scene. By no stretch of logic can it be conclusively explained
why petitioner was sent out of his house on an errand when in the first place the police officers
were in fact apprehensive that he would flee to evade arrest. This fact assumes prime importance
because the two filled sachets were allegedly discovered by Esternon immediately after
petitioner returned to his house from the errand, such that he was not able to witness the conduct
of the search during the brief but crucial interlude that he was away.
Moreover, Section 2144 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 clearly
outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. In a language too plain to
require a different construction, it mandates that the officer acquiring initial custody of drugs
under a search warrant must conduct the photographing and the physical inventory of the item at
the place where the warrant has been served. Esternon deviated from this procedure. It was
elicited from him that at the close of the search of petitioner's house, he brought the seized items
immediately to the police station for the alleged purpose of making a "true inventory" thereof,
but there appears to be no reason why a true inventory could not be made in petitioner's house
when in fact the apprehending team was able to record and mark the seized items and there and
then prepare a seizure receipt therefor. Lest it be forgotten, the raiding team has had enough
opportunity to cause the issuance of the warrant which means that it has had as much time to
prepare for its implementation. While the final proviso in Section 21 of the rules would appear to
excuse non-compliance therewith, the same cannot benefit the prosecution as it failed to offer
any acceptable justification for Esternon's course of action.
WHETHER

The presumption of regularity is merely just that—a mere presumption disputable by contrary
proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.52 Suffice
it to say that this presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that
prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.53 In the present case the lack of
conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from petitioner, coupled with the
irregularity in the manner by which the same were placed under police custody before offered in
court, strongly militates a finding of guilt.

PEOPLE VS MARTINEZ - G.R. No. 191366

at around 12:45 o’clock in the afternoon, PO1 Azardon was on duty at the Police Community
Precinct II along Arellano Street, Dagupan City, when a concerned citizen entered the precinct
and reported that a pot session was going on in the house of accused Rafael
Gonzales (Gonzales) in Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon receipt of the report, PO1
Azardon, PO1 Alejandro Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz), and members of the Special Weapons and
Tactics (SWAT) team hied to Trinidad Subdivision, Dagupan City. Upon inquiry from people in
the area, the house of Gonzales was located.
As the police officers entered the gate of the house, they saw accused Orlando
Doria (Doria) coming out of the side door and immediately arrested him. Inside the house, they
saw accused Gonzales, Arnold Martinez (A. Martinez), Edgar Dizon (Dizon), and Rezin
Martinez (R. Martinez) in a room. The four were surprised by the presence of the police. In front
of them were open plastic sachets (containing shabu residue), pieces of rolled used aluminum
foil and pieces of used aluminum foil.

WHEHTER OR NOT THE ARREST WAS VALID?

NO,

it indicates that the apprehending officers should have conducted first a surveillance considering
that the identities and address of the suspected culprits were already ascertained. After
conducting the surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause for arresting
accused-appellants, they should have secured a search warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest
and seizure. The arrest being illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was likewise illegal.
Every evidence thus obtained during the illegal search cannot be used against accused-
appellants; hence, their acquittal must follow in faithful obeisance to the fundamental law. 19

It has been held that personal knowledge of facts in arrests without warrant must be based upon
probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of
suspicion are reasonable when the suspicion, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
committing an offense, is based on actual facts, that is, supported by circumstances sufficiently
strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.

PEOPLE VS DAHIL - G.R. No. 212196

the inventory was not conducted immediately at the place where the alleged buy-bust happened
(where the items were seized). In fact, there were even no pictures taken at the scene. This
already casts doubt as to whether or not the illegal drugs presented in court were actually the
drugs allegedly seized from Dahil and Castro. The affidavits of the police officers did not
indicate what markings were placed on the alleged drugs seized. The markings were only
indicated by the chemist. And, the chemist never appeared in court despite the subpoena sent to
her. Since the chemist did not appear, the prosecution could not even explain how the illegal
drugs were presented in court.
will the presumption of regularity make up with the lapses?

No, The regularity of the performance of duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the
police officers because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. 51 The
presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the
performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the presumption of regularity will never
be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of
evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused to be presumed innocent. 5

PEOPLE VS GADIANA - G.R. No. 184761

At about 3:40 P.M. on February 7, 2004, while PO1 Busico, along with PO3 Dinauanao, PO2
Erwin Ferrer, and three other police officers, was conducting saturation drive at Sitio San Roque,
Barangay Mambaling, Cebu City, he chanced upon appellant holding two small plastic sachets
containing crystalline substances which he was about to place inside his pocket.61avvphi1

The policemen, identifying themselves as such, apprehended appellant at once, confiscated the
two sachets from his right hand, brought him with the confiscated sachets to their office, and
turned over the sachets to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Service which
found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride

Whether

Chain of custody establishes the identity of the subject substance.17 It requires that testimony be
presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item is seized up to the time it is
offered in evidence.18 When nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated is the same
specimen examined and established to be prohibited drug,19 there can be no crime of illegal
possession of a prohibited drug.

Except for the charge sheet20 prepared against appellant which stated that evidence consisted of
"two (2) heat-sealed clear plastic sachets containing shabu with markings ‘JGR-1’ and ‘JGR-2,’"
nowhere in the record is a showing that the marking was done in the presence of appellant or his
representatives or that a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were taken as
required under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 reading:

Parenthetically, appellant’s arrest, not to mention resulting confiscation of the alleged

confiscation of the plastic sachets of crystalline substances in his possession, leaves nagging
doubts on its validity in light of the fact that what PO1 Busico merely saw was appellant’s
placing of the plastic sachets in his pocket which, without more, does not justify his warrantless
arrest under the Rules.

PEOPLE VS PAGADUAN - G.R. No. 179029

After having received information that the appellant was selling illegal drugs in Nueva Vizcaya,
Captain Jaime de Vera called, on his cellular phone, PO3 Peter Almarez and SPO1 Domingo
Balido – who were both in Santiago City – and informed them of a planned buy-bust operation.
They agreed to meet at the SSS Building near LMN Hotel in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.4 On
their arrival there, Captain de Vera conducted a briefing and designated PO3 Almarez as the
poseur buyer. Thereafter, Captain de Vera introduced PO3 Almarez to the police informant
(tipster),5 and gave him (PO3 Almarez) two ₱100 bills (Exhibits "D" and "E") which the latter
marked with his initials.6

After this briefing, the buy-bust team went to Bintawan Road, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya to conduct
the entrapment operation.7 PO3 Almarez and the informant rode a tricycle, while Captain de
Vera and SPO1 Balido followed on board a tinted van.8 The buy-bust team arrived at the target
area at around 4:30 p.m., and saw the appellant already waiting for the informant. The informant
approached the appellant and introduced PO3 Almarez to him as a buyer. PO3 Almarez told the
appellant that he needed shabu worth ₱200, and inquired from him (appellant) if he had a
"stock." The appellant replied in the affirmative, and then handed one heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO3 Almarez. PO3 Almarez, in turn,
gave the two pre-marked ₱100 bills to the appellant.9 Immediately after, PO3 Almarez made the
pre-arranged signal to his companions, who then approached the appellant. Captain de Vera took
the marked money from the appellant’s right pocket, and then arrested him.10 PO3 Almarez, for
his part, marked the sachet with his initials.11 Thereafter, the buy-bust team brought the appellant
to the Diadi Police Station for investigation.12

At the police station, Captain de Vera prepared a request for laboratory examination (Exh.
"C").13 The appellant was transferred to the Diadi Municipal Jail where he was detained. 14 Two
days later, or on December 29, 2003, PO3 Almarez transmitted the letter-request, for laboratory
examination, and the seized plastic sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they were
received by PO2 Fernando Dulnuan.15 Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Alfredo Quintero, the
Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, conducted an examination on the specimen
submitted, and found it to be positive for the presence of shabu (Exh. "B").16

Whehter or not the prosecution failed to established the chain of custody?

Yes,

In the present case, the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish the chain that would have
shown that the shabu presented in court was the very same specimen seized from the appellant.

The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the heat-sealed plastic sachet from
the appellant. PO3 Almarez mentioned on cross-examination that he placed his initials on the
confiscated sachet "after apprehending" the appellant. Notably, this testimony constituted the
totality of the prosecution’s evidence on the marking of the seized evidence. PO3 Almarez’s
testimony, however, lacked specifics on how he marked the sachet and who witnessed the
marking. In People v. Sanchez, we ruled that the "marking" of the seized items – to truly ensure
that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence –
should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation. In the present case, nothing in the records gives us an insight on the manner and
circumstances that attended the marking of the confiscated sachet. Whether the marking had
been done in the presence of the appellant is not at all clear from the evidence that merely
mentioned that the evidence had been marked after the appellant’s apprehension.

The second link in the chain of custody is its turnover from the apprehending team to the police
station. PO3 Almarez testified that the appellant was brought to the Diadi Police Station after his
arrest. However, he failed to identify the person who had control and possession of the seized
drug at the time of its transportation to the police station. In the absence of clear evidence, we
cannot presume that PO3 Almarez, as the poseur buyer, handled the seized sachet – to the
exclusion of others - during its transfer from the place of arrest and confiscation to the police
station. The prosecution likewise failed to present evidence pertaining to the identity of the duty
desk officer who received the plastic sachet containing shabu from the buy-bust team. This is
particularly significant since the seized specimen was turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory
only after two days. It was not, therefore, clear who had temporary custody of the seized items
during this significant intervening period of time. Although the records show that the request for
laboratory examination of the seized plastic sachet was prepared by Captain de Vera, the
evidence does not show that he was the official who received the marked plastic sachet from the
buy-bust team.

As for the subsequent links in the chain of custody, the records show that the seized specimen
was forwarded by PO3 Almarez to the PNP Crime Laboratory on December 29, 2003, where it
was received by PO2 Dulnuan, and later examined by PSI Quintero. However, the person from
whom PO3 Almarez received the seized illegal drug for transfer to the crime laboratory was not
identified. As earlier discussed, the identity of the duty desk officer who received the shabu, as
well as the person who had temporary custody of the seized items for two days, had not been
established.

The procedural lapses mentioned above show the glaring gaps in the chain of custody, creating a
reasonable doubt whether the drugs confiscated from the appellant were the same drugs that were
brought to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis, and eventually offered in court as
evidence. In the absence of concrete evidence on the illegal drugs bought and sold, the body of
the crime – the corpus delicti – has not been adequately proven.44 In effect, the prosecution failed
to fully prove the elements of the crime charged, creating reasonable doubt on the appellant’s
criminal liability.

FIRST, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer.
SECOND, the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer (within 24 hours);

THIRD, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and

FOURTH, the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized
from the forensic chemist to the court.