Page 1 of 38

TITLE V
CRIMES RELATIVE TO
OPIUM AN OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS
Danielle Bunquin
Norisa Bravo
Abigail Cayabyab
Lorelie De Leon
Rustom Desola
Jarvin Lim
Emmanuel Paningbatan
Gian Carlo Soriano
Ven Telles
Paul Dominic Untalasco
Jericho Vargas

Page 2 of 38

FOREWORD
'I'd like to begin this first lecture with a personal statement,' he announced. Some of the pens
and pencils were laid to rest. 'There are many reasons to practise law in this country,' he began,
'but only one which is worthy of you, and certainly only one that interests me. It applies to
every facet of the law that you might be interested in pursuing, and it has never been better
expressed than in the engrossed parchment of The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen
United States of America.
' "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness." That one sentence is what distinguishes America from every other
country on earth. 'In some aspects, our nation has progressed mightily since 1776,' continued
the Professor, still not having referred to his notes as he walked up and down tugging the lapels
of his well-worn Harris tweed jacket, 'while in others we have moved rapidly backwards. Each
of you in this hall can be part of the next generation of law makers or law breakers -' he paused,
surveying the silent gathering, '- and you have been granted the greatest gift of all with which
to help make that choice, a first-class mind. When my colleagues and I have finished with you,
you can if you wish go out into the real world and ignore the Declaration of Independence as if
it were worth no more than the parchment it was written on, outdated and irrelevant in this
modern age. Or,' he continued, 'you may choose to benefit society by upholding the law. That is
the course great lawyers take. Bad lawyers, and I do not mean stupid ones, are those who begin
to bend the law, which, I submit, is only a step away from breaking it. To those of you in this
class who wish to pursue such a course I must advise that I have nothing to teach you, because
you are beyond learning. You are still free to attend my lectures, but "attending" is all you will
be doing.'
The room was so silent that Scott looked up to check they hadn't all crept out. 'Not my words,'
he continued as he stared at the intent faces, 'but those of Dean Thomas W. Swan, who
lectured in this theatre for the first twenty-seven years of this century. I see no reason not to
repeat his philosophy whenever I address an incoming class of the Yale Law School.'
-

Jeffrey Archer, Honor Among Thieves

Page 3 of 38

TITLE V CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AN OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS

1. Articles 190 to 194 of the RPC are repealed by R.A. 6425, otherwise known as The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by P.D. No. 1683 and further amended by
R.A. No. 7659. R.A. No. 6425, as amended has been repealed by R.A. 9165 otherwise
known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
Stuff about RA 9165
1.) Buy-bust Operation. There are no hard and fast rules for buy-bust operations. They
are presumed to be regular operations unless the accused can prove that they weren't
and that there was a frame-up (People vs Agustin, 215 SCRA 725.) Frame-up, also known
as inducement, is easy to fabricate and must be disregarded unless the evidence is clear
and convincing. A sale happens when the transaction is consummated and may be on
payment or delivery (People vs Ponsica, 230 SCRA 87.) What matters is that the accused
was caught in the act (People vs. Aspiras, 376 SCRA 546.)
Mere acting as a broker is already sufficient to commit the crime of selling drugs (People
vs. Agustin.)
2.) "Plain View" Doctrine. In a lawful arrest, a search is always in order. The search,
however, is limited only to the person of the accused and the premises under his
immediate control. A seizure under the "plain view" doctrine must conform to the
following rules (from People vs. Aspiras:)
1.) There is a valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest (it's not just
ordinary people who can do this) with the police legally present
2.) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the policemen who had the
right to be there
3.) The evidence must be immediately apparent
4.) "Plain view" justifies mere seizure without further search
3.) Elements of Illegal Sale. Taken from People vs. Evangelista, 534 SCRA 245 and People
vs.Santiago, 539 SCRA 198:
a.) Identities of the buyer, seller, object (thing to be sold) and consideration
(price)

Page 4 of 38

b.) Delivery of the thing sold and payment of the price

There are 2 additional details from People vs. Pendatun, 434 SCRA 148:
a.) The accused sold and delivered the drug to another person
b.) He knew that he sold and delivered a dangerous drug
4.) Kinds of Possession: Possession doesn't only include actual possession. There's also
what's known as constructive possession. Constructive possession happens when the
drug is under the control of the accused or if he has the right to exercise dominion and
control over the place where the drugs are. People vs. Tira (430 SCRA 134) gives us 2
sets of elements for actual possession: for illegal drugs and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals/regulated drugs. Constructive possession can be exclusive as well as
joint (People vs. Huang, 439 SCRA 350.)
Illegal drugs:
a.) Actual possession of an illegal drug
b.) The possession isn't authorized by law
c.) The accused freely and consciously possessed the drug
Controlled precursors and essential chemicals/regulated drugs (also found in
People vs Castillo, 439 SCRA 601:)
a.) Accused is found in possession of a regulated drug
b.) He isn't authorized by law or duly-constituted authority (ex. he doesn't have a
doctor's prescription)
c.) He knows that the drug is regulated
5.) Possession vs. Sale. Possession and sale are different crimes. When a person is
arrested while selling drugs, the possession of the drugs he has are absorbed into the
sale. Hence, the only crime committed is sale (People vs. Catan, 205 SCRA 235.) The
exception is if the accused sold the drugs but has some more in his possession (People
vs. Angeles (218 SCRA 352.) If that happens, he will be tried for both possession and
sale.
6.) Receipt of Payment. A basic rule in civil law is that there is already a sale when the
seller agrees to sell and the buyer agrees to buy. This is also considered in RA 9165.

Page 5 of 38

There is already a sale when the buyer agrees to buy and the seller agrees to sell.
Consequently, payment of the money for a buy-bust operation isn't necessary anymore
(People vs Yang, 423 SCRA 82.) In fact, even if the "buyer" didn't have the money,
there's already a sale if he agreed to buy (People vs. Macasa 229 SCRA 422.)
2. Acts punishable by R.A. No. 6425
Importation of Prohibited Drugs
Sale, Administration, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Prohibited
Drugs
Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort for Prohibited Drug Users.
Employees and Visitors of Prohibited Drug Den.
Possession or Use of Prohibited Drugs.
Cultivation of Plants Which are Sources of Prohibited Drugs.
Records of Prescriptions, Sales, Purchases, Acquisitions and/or Deliveries of
Prohibited Drugs.
Unlawful Prescription of Prohibited Drugs.
Unnecessary Prescription of Prohibited Drugs.
Possession of Opium Pipe and Other Paraphernalia for Prohibited Drugs.
Importation of Regulated Drugs.
Sale, Administration, Dispension, Delivery, Transportation and Distribution of
Regulated Drugs.
Possession or Use of Regulated Drugs.
Records of Prescriptions, Sales, Purchases, Acquisitions and/or Deliveries of
Regulated Drugs.
Unlawful Prescription of Regulated Drugs.
Unnecessary Prescription of Regulated Drugs.
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2002/ra_9165_2002.html
3. Read R.A. No. 9165
Republic Act No. 9165, known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 approved on January 23, 2002, is an act instituting the comprehensive Dangerous
Drug Act of 2002, repealing Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, and providing funds for its implementation. It
establishes the Dangerous Drugs Board which is the policy-making and strategyformulating body in the planning and formulation of policies and programs on drug
prevention and control. It also creates the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA),
which serves as the implementing arm of the Board, shall be responsible for the efficient

Page 6 of 38

and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in this Act.
http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2002/ra_9165_2002.html
Please refer to the PPT File sent with the material for Title IV
4. Unlawful acts and penalties under Article II of R.A. No. 9165
Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals
Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals
Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort
Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort
Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals
Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus, and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals
Possession of Dangerous Drugs
Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs
Possession of Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings
Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings
Use of Dangerous Drugs
Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources
Thereof
Maintenance and Keeping of Original Records of Transactions on Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals
Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous Drugs
Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs
Issuance of False or Fraudulent Drug Test Results
Please refer to the attached JPEG Files.

Page 7 of 38

5. Cases:
a) People vs Rosa Aruta, G.R. No. 120915, April 3, 1998
Facts: In the morning of 13 Dec 1988, the law enforcement officers received
information from an informant named Benjie that a certain Aling Rosa would be
leaving for Baguio City on 14 Dec 1988 and would be back in the afternoon of the
same day carrying with her a large volume of marijuana; At 6:30 in the evening of
14 Dec 1988, Aruta alighted from a Victory Liner Bus carrying a travelling bag even as
the informant pointed her out to the law enforcement officers; NARCOM officers
approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM agents; When asked by Lt.
Abello about the contents of her travelling bag, she gave the same to him; When
they opened the same, they found dried marijuana leaves; Aruta was then brought
to the NARCOM office for investigation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the conducted search and seizure is constitutional.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Aruta and has noted that some drug traffickers are
being freed due to technicalities. Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime.
Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Aruta
was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that would
engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude that
she was committing a crime. It was only when the informant pointed to Aruta and
identified her to the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out
as the suspect. The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended Aruta were it not
for the furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by the evidence
on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to suspect that accusedappellant was committing a crime, except for the pointing finger of the informant.
The SC could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the
constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was there
any semblance of any compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and
warrantless arrests. Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents
to effect a warrantless search of Arutas bag, there being no probable cause and the
accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested. Stated otherwise, the arrest
being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent search was similarly
illegal, it being not incidental to a lawful arrest. The constitutional guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure must perforce operate in favor of accusedappellant. As such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against
accused-appellant for these are fruits of a poisoned tree and, therefore, must be
rejected, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the Constitution.
b) People vs Angeles, 218 SCRA 352
Facts: Sgt. Guillen, in lieu of a tip of reliable source, staged an entrapment upon one
Angeles, who was alleged to be a drug pusher. The former posed as a buyer and went to
the latter to induce a purchase. The trade succeeded with Guillen able to purchase a
pack of Marijuana with a marked 20 peso bill. Upon such happenings, the former
signaled his co-workers to arrest the latter, who tried to escape but failed. Upon frisk

Page 8 of 38

the officers discovered more of the illegal drug on the accused and found within, the
marked 20 peso bill. Hence, accused was brought to the camp for further investigation.
In his defense, accused stated that he was framed and pleaded innocence from
possession of the said prohibited drugs.
Issue:
1. Whether or not accuseds contention of being a victim of a frame up is tenable?
2. Whether or not accused is guilty of the crime of illegal possession and sale of
prohibited drugs based on the evidence of marked money allegedly used by the
NARCOM agents which is doubtful in nature since it has not been properly marked?
Held:
1. As to the alleged frame up, the accuseds failure to prove with convincing evidence
of the fact is self serving, since it is presumed that the NARCOM agents are
performing their duty.
2. The question as to whether the buy-bust money was marked or not is immaterial in
determining whether there has been a violation of Section 4, Article II of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. To stress once again, proof of the transaction suffices to
constitute a violation thereof, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti. In such a case, not even the absence or non-presentation of the marked
money would create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution.
Verily, the fact that appellant had indeed unlawfully sold and had possession of
marijuana is evident from all the foregoing considerations and his conviction on the
separate charges of illegal possession and illegal sale of the illicit drug must
necessarily be affirmed. We cannot do otherwise and thereby be recreant to our
sworn duties to the People who are likewise entitled to justice in equal measure as
herein appellant.
Wherefore, the accused is thereby sentenced to life imprisonment refuting the
ruling of the lower courts in setting a penalty of reclusion perpetua.
c) People vs Barita, G.R. No. 123541, February 8, 2000
Facts: Diolo Barita (BARITA), Denver Golsing (GOLSING) and Dionisio Cuison
(CUISON) were charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425,
the accused was charged with selling and delivering more or less 2,800 grams of
dried marijuana. In support of his appeal, BARITA denies any participation in the
alleged sale of marijuana. He claims that no buy-bust operation was conducted and
that the accusation against him was all part of a frame-up. To prove this, BARITA

Page 9 of 38

alleges that the prosecution evidence is replete with numerous flaws and glaring
inconsistencies.
HELD: Accused-appellants defense of frame-up does not convince us of their
innocence. Such defense has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it
can easily be concocted but difficult to prove and is a common and standard line of
defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Any person who sells or acts as a broker in the sale of marijuana shall be punished
with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand
pesos to ten million pesos if 750 grams or more of marijuana is sold.
d) People vs Chen Tiz and Chang Jung San a.ka. Willy Tan, G.R.No. 181872-73, February
17, 2000
Facts: Before the Court is an appeal by Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San, also
known as Willy Tan challenging the October 16, 1997 Decision of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 95) in a Criminal Case finding them guilty
of illegal possession and sale of shabu and sentencing each of them to two counts
of reclusion perpetua.
HELD: In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown
that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a
prohibited or a regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law and (3)
the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. Here, as in Boco, the
prosecution witnesses were able to establish these elements.
We are not persuaded by the argument that the samples examined were not taken
from the drugs seized. On the contrary, the testimonies of all the prosecution
witnesses fairly established that the shabu taken from the appellants is the same
substance examined by the forensic chemist and later presented as evidence in
court. Verily, the presumption of regularity must prevail over appellants unfounded
allegations and speculations. Appellants behavior during the entrapment showed
that there was conspiracy between them and a third person who got away with the
buy-bust money. It is an established rule that direct proof is not essential to establish
conspiracy, as it may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and
after the commission of the crime, all of which indubitably point to or indicate a joint
purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest.
e) People vs Ong Co, 245 SCRA 733 1995
FACTS: This is a petition for the reversal of decision in finding the appellant guilty of
violating Sec15, Art 3 of the R.A. 6425(dangerous drugs act of 172) which is
punishable for life imprisonment and to pay php25,000.00. The appellant, through a

Page 10 of 38

buy-bust operation conducted by the regional police intelligence unit at Camp

Bagong Diwa, Taguig City dispensed and sold approx. 271.98g of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, also known as "shabu" to an undercover police. On his appeal, the
appellant denies the accusation of having in possession the said drugs. He also
questioned the credibility of the police witnesses. Also, he claims that the package
was not seen clearly seen by the arresting officers and that the alleged boodle
money was not marked before the buy-bust operation.
ISSUE: WON the court erred in convicting Ong Co of the crime charged as 1.) the
testimonies of the witnesses were not consistent; and 2.) corpus delicti was not
established
HELD: No. The Court did not err. 1.) The court found no inconsistencies between the
testimonies of the witnesses. What the appellant pointed out to be so, such as their
statements on who actually held him, 10 are on minor or trivial matters which do
not affect the substance, veracity, or weight of the testimony. Such inconsistencies
would even serve to strengthen the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because
they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. 2.) Corpus delicti was established
as the arresting officers clearly identified the four packets which accused sold to the
undercover policeman and the marked bills were not clearly marked (as the accused
was receiving them he suspected it was just boodle money so the policemen closed
in for the arrest wherein the marked money were written with the initials of an
officer RACA and turned over to an investigator). Nonetheless, the absence of the
marked money would not create a hiatus in the prosecutions evidence as long as
the prohibited stuff was presented before the trial court.
f) People vs Zervoulakos, 241 SCRA 625 (2002 Bar)
Facts: Prosecution contends that on November 5, 1990, the Makati Police Station
received a complaint that a certain Richard Zervoulakos was engaged in the sale of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu". A buy-bust
operation was planned after surveillance was conducted. On November 7, 1990,
12:30 AM, Police Officer Martin posted himself in front of a restaurant wherein
Zervoulakos approached him and asked if he wanted to buy some shabu. Martin said
yes and took out two (2) marked one hundred peso bills in exchange for a small
plastic bag containing shabu. At the precise moment Zervoulakos was handing the
plastic bag, Pantaleon and another policeman arrested the appellant and brought
him to the police headquarters. The substance in the small plastic bag was later on
examined and confirmed to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Zervoulakos had a different story wherein he claimed that on November 7, 1990 at
about 12:30 AM, he bought "pasalubong" for his mother at JBB Bakery along J.P.

Page 11 of 38

Rizal Street, Makati. On his way home, he was bumped by somebody who was being
chased by two policemen. When the policemen failed to catch their quarry, they
returned and mistaken him for his twin brother Eric. He was, nonetheless
searched wherein his P1,500.00 was confiscated. The policemen then hailed a
taxicab and brought appellant to the police precinct wherein the policemen tried to
arranged his release in exchanged for money. Zervoulakos further claims that the
police arrested him because of the fault of his twin brother.
Issues: Whether or not, the accused is guilty of Section 15, Article III of Republic Act
No. 6425, as amended (the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
Held: Yes, Zervoulakos is GUILTY. First, his contention that he could not have
flaunted his trade carelessly by asking a total stranger if he wanted to buy shabu is
without merit. SC said that Appellant's bare denial cannot prevail against his
positive identification as the peddler by the prosecution witnessesThe sale of
prohibited drugs to complete strangers, openly and in public places, has become a
common occurrence. Indeed, it is sad to note the effrontery and growing casualness
of drug pushers in the pursuit of their illicit trade, as if it were a perfectly legitimate
operation. Second, his contention that there were serious inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses was also without merit as the alleged
contradictory (who frisked the accused) testimonies are so inconsequential that they
do not affect the credibility of the witness nor detract from the established fact of
illegal sale of shabu by appellant. Lastly, Zervoulakos claim that the testimony of
Martin as poseur-buyer is without merit is without merit (^_^). SC said that It is a
settled rule that there is no need to present other witnesses especially if their
testimonies would only be cumulative or corroborative. The testimony of a single
witness, if positive and credible, as in this case, is sufficient to support conviction.
g) People vs Yang, G.R. No. 148077, February 16, 2004
FACTS: Sometime in February 2000, NBI received a tip from an confidential informer
that appellant Willy Yang (aka Alex Yu, Yang Xing Li and Willy Yeung), a Chinese
citizen, and one Henry Yeung (aka Yu Chi) were dealing on prohibited drugs. NBI
officers then asked the informer to make arrangements for the purchase of 5 kilos of
shabu worth P3.5M to enable them to conduct a buy-bust operation, with NBI
Special Investigator Rodrigo Mapoy acting as poseur-buyer. Said operation took
place on March 6, 2000 at 5 pm. Meeting was held in Savory Restaurant in Taft
Avenue, Manila where informant introduced Mapoy to appellant as Henry Yu. On
the latters suggestion, they boarded his car and proceeded to the parking lot of
Manila Doctors Hospital. Apellant then asked to be shown the money to which the
agents complied. They then walked towards a parked Kia Sportage van where they
were shown a carton containing 5 plastic bags with powdery white substance. While
yet examining the plastic bags, a group of people unexpectedly came out of the back

Page 12 of 38

of the hospital. This caused the appellant and his companion to run to their waiting
car and immediately sped away. Mapoy radioed the NBI for instructions and was
directed to bring the van to their office in Taft Avenue. The van was searched and
among the items found were the carton containing shabu, and an ID card issued by
Tri-Media Power of the Philippines bearing the apellants name, picture and
address. He was arrested in Valenzuela at 8pm on March 6, 2000. He was charged
and convicted of the crime of violation of Sec 15, Art III of RA 6425, as amended by
RA 7659, involving 4.45 kg shabu with aggravating circumstance of offense having
been committed by a syndicated crime group and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
death by lethal injection.
ISSUE: WON the court erred in its appreciation and application of the facts,
evidence and law that the accused sold, dispensed, delivered, transported of
distributed regulated drugs.
HELD: NO. Appellant assailed the credibility of the testimony of Mapoy as full of
improbabilities. As to his credibility, we rely on the assessment made by the trial
court. The court holds that there is nothing improbable about a dealer selling a huge
amount of shabu to a stranger, especially since he knew the informant beforehand.
There is likewise nothing unusual that such drugs would be stored in an unguarded
vehicle as such parking lot was guarded and secured. As for the media ID card,
appellant could have simply overlooked its presence inside the van, since it was
procured primarily to exempt him from the MMDA traffic reduction scheme.
Appellants running away when he saw a group of people is also not unthinkable for
this could be due to fear of possible entrapment and arrest. Finally, his contention
that the alleged sale was not consummated, hence he should not be convinced, is
without merit. The information alleged not only of selling but also of dispensing,
delivering, transporting or distributing a regulated drug, shabu. The absence of
actual or completed payment is irrelevant in the law, for the law penalizes the very
act of delivery, regardless of any consideration. IN sum, the court finds him guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. As to penalty, there is no evidence to prove his
membership in a syndicated crime group and it was also not alleged in the
information. Judgment AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Reclusion perpetua and
modification in fine to be imposed.

h) People vs Adam, G.R. No. 143842, October 13, 2003

Facts: On February 17, 1999 PO3 Lucidos team together with the confidential informant
conduct a buy-bust operation. They arrived at the parking space at 7-11 store and
Wendys Restaurant at the crossing in Calamba Laguna. Momentarily, Adam arrived and
approached the confidential informant, who forthwith introduced PO3 Lucido as the
buyer of 200 grams of shabu. Adam showed PO3 Lucido a transparent plastic tea bag
which contained white crystalline substances. PO3 Lucido in turn handed over the

Page 13 of 38

envelope containing the marked P1,000.00 bills and the boodle money to Adam,
scratched his head, and identified himself as a police officer. PO3 Lucido then took the
plastic bag from Adam and arrested him. The back-up men then rushed to the scene of
the crime. SPO1 Satuito confiscated the two P1,000.00 bills and the boodle money from
Adam.
Accordingly, the court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of DrugPushing. The appellant asserts that he evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short
of the requisite quantum of evidence for his conviction of the sale of shabu
(methamphetamine hydrochloride).
Issue: Whether or not the court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of Drug-Pushing despite the fact that the full amount of the consideration
therefore was never stated in the court by PO3 Lucido, the alleged poseur buyer.
Rulings: Yes. There is no evidence that PO3 Lucido talked about and agreed with the
appellant on the purchase price of the shabu. There is no evidence that the appellant
handed over the shabu to PO3 Lucido. As gleaned from the latters testimony, the
appellant merely showed the bag containing the shabu and held on to it before it was
confiscated by PO3 Lucido.
Moreover, there is no shred of evidence to prove that the appellant was aware that the
envelope contained money. The OSG cannot rely on the ruling of this Court in People vs.
Herrera because in that case, the prosecution was able to prove the sale of the
prohibited drug to the poseur-buyer, the delivery of the shabu to the latter and the
payment of the purchase price of the shabu to the appellant therein.
However, the court finds the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
attempted sale of shabu.
6. Recent cases on Section 21, R.A. No. 9165
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources or dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and or surrendered, for proper disposition in
the following manner:

Page 14 of 38

(1)

The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the

drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the persons/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and
be given a copy thereof; x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

a) Cases of acquittal: based on non-compliance with the chain of custody:

a.1) Cacao vs People, G.R.No. 180870, January 22, 2010
Facts: Cacao (contractor) was waiting for a ride when suddenly Joseph Canlas asked
the petitioner if the latter could spare a moment for a work he wanted to be done in
his house. Petitioner agreed and both boarded. Meanwhile the two stopped at a
public market for the latter to collect loan payment, when Canlas returned they
decided to have chicks (WFTS) and proceeded to a hotel. Upon waiting for the girl
Canlas stayed in a room in the hotel while Cacao was at the counter. A male and
female (Mylene Daquioag) was alighted from a motorcycle. Thereafter Mylene
proceeded to the room. When petitioner could not wait he ask the companion if
other woman will arrived but answered in the negative. Later, petitioner followed to
the room so he could go home, upon entering, Cacao saw the 2 seated at a table. He
also saw Mylene offering something to Canlas. The latter refused as he said it is a
woman that he was asking for. Suddenly, after entering the room the two heard a
knock. As Mylene unlocked the door, several policeman barged inside the room w/
firearms and petitioner was later bodily searched but nothing was found except his
wallet. The policemen pointed out that the sachet was belong to the petitioner.
Immediately, petitioner denied. The two were brought to the police station.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner be acquitted against the chain of custody rule.
Held: No, the chain of custody rule in this case is instructive, as a mode of
authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires the presentation of the
seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would
ideally cover the testimony about every link in the chain, from seizure of the
prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that everyone
who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, to
include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered
to the next in the chain (People v. Gutierrez). Petitioners defenses of denial and
frame-up are concededly inherently weak and commonly used in drug-related cases.

Page 15 of 38

However, it must be stressed that conviction of the accused must rest not on the
weakness of the defense but on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution. He
is still acquitted but not on the basis of the said rule but on the ground of reasonable
doubt.
a.2) People vs Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010
FACTS: On October 16, 2002 the Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Unit of
the Southern Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig received information from an
asset that a certain Zaida was selling shabu at Purok IV, Silverio Compound,
Paranaque City. At 10 PM of October 16,2002, SPO2 Sanchez, poseur-buyer, gave
marked PHP 300 bills to accused-appellant for the purchase of shabu. Upon receipt
of the item, Zaida Kamad and her boyfriend, Leo, were arrested. The RTC Branch 259
of Paranaque City found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165 for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of methamphetamine
HCL. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC.
ISSUE: Is accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of shabu?
RULING: No, the Court ruled that in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction
took place, (2) corpus delicti presented as evidence. Records showed that the
prosecution through SPO2 Sanchez, established the sale of the prohibited drug
shabu by accused-appellant but the RTC and the CA failed to notice the defects in
the prosecutions case such as (1) lapse in implementing Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 in the handling of the seized shabu and (2) failure of police to comply with the
chain of custody rule. For violations of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, no inventory
and photographing of seized drugs was done at the place of arrest as well as the
presence of the accused as it was being done nor are presentative of the media, the
DOJ, and any elected pubic official who will confirm that evidence seized were as
they were found. Neither was it established by the prosecution why such thing were
not followed by presenting (1) justifiable cause and (2) preserving the integrity and
evidentiary value of seized evidence as required by the IRR of RA 9165 Section 21A.For non-compliance of the chain of custody rule, which requires the
documentation and description of evidence as it is being processed along the system
was neither complied. Court reverses and sets aside the decision of the CA affirming
the final judgment of RTC Branch259 of Paranaque City for the illegal sale of shabu
of accused-appellant. Zaida Kamad is hereby acquitted and ordered released from
detention.

Page 16 of 38

a.3) People vs Frondozo, G.R. No. 177164, June 30, 2009

Facts: On March 27, 2003, police organized to conduct surveillance and buy-bust
operation to entrap Ramon Frondozo due to information from a police asset. A PO1
Butay approached Frondozos house and knocked at the door several times. When a
man came out, PO1 Butay told him "pakuha." The man asked, "magkano?" and he
replied "piso lang." The man said, "sandali lang" then went back inside the house.
Moments later, the man returned and handed a plastic sachet to PO1 Butay. PO1
Butay examined its content and was satisfied that the plastic sachet contained
shabu. PO1 Butay then handed the man the P100 buy-bust money and put the
plastic sachet of shabu inside his pocket. PO1 Butay then removed his baseball cap
as pre-arranged to signal to his teammates that the sale was already consummated.
He introduced himself to the man and stated "pulis ako pare" and showed him his
badge. He frisked the mans body and found two arrows with sling, one fan knife and
the P100 buy-bust money from the mans hand. PO1 Butay testified that his
teammates never went inside the house.
In his defense, Frondozo denied the accusations against him. He testified that on
March 27, 2003 at about 10:00 p.m., a group of police officers arrived at his
residence and was instructed to face the wall and frisked when he responded that
he was Monching. According to Frondozo, he was ordered to turn over the shabu
which they accused him of keeping. Despite his denial of the accusation, he was still
handcuffed, arrested and made to board a vehicle. Frondozo further averred that
PO1 Butay, PO2 Ortencio and PO1 Medrano entered and searched his house.
Frondozo further narrated that he was thereafter brought to the Mini City Hall
Annex Police Station wherein PO1 Butay confronted and accused him of stealing his
13 fighting cocks. Moreover, Frondozo claimed that PO1 Butay extorted money from
him. While in the detention cell, PO1 Butay told him to pay P50,000 for his release
but the amount was later reduced to P20,000. He said he was unable to pay since he
has not yet received his salary. He further claimed that he only learned of the case
filed against him after he was transferred to the City Jail. He also claimed he has
never seen shabu in his entire life.
RTC found Frondozo Guilty of violating Sec 5, Art 2 of RA 9165 and sentenced to Life
Imprisonment.
Issue: Could Frondozo be acquitted due to the absence of statutory safeguards
mandated by RA 9165?

Page 17 of 38

Held: Yes. SC acquitted Frondozo due to the absence of statutory safeguards

mandated by RA 9165. In this case, the arresting officers failed to strictly comply
with the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs
as prescribed by Rep. Act No. 9165. The arresting officers did not mark the shabu
immediately after they arrested Frondozo. Further, while there was testimony
regarding the marking of the shabuafter it was turned over to the police
investigator, no evidence was presented to prove that the marking thereof was done
in the presence of Frondozo. Also, fatal in the prosecutions case is the failure of the
arresting officers to take a photograph and make an inventory of the confiscated
materials in the presence of Frondozo. Likewise, there was no mention that any
representative from the media, DOJ or any elected public official had been present
during the inventory or that any of these persons had been required to sign the
copies of the inventory. The testimony of the arresting officers was not accorded by
the SC with full faith and credit because the performance of their duties is tainted
with irregularities. Henceforth, SC ruled that the corpus delicti in this case does
not exist.
a.4) People vs Partoza, G.R.No. 182418, May 8, 2009
DOCTRINE: RA 9165 mandates that upon arrest the arresting officer must
immediately inventory and photograph the shabu in the presence of the accused,
failure to, renders the evidence in admissible.
FACTS: On November 2 2002 Partoza was apprehended by the San Mateo police
during a buy bust operation. RTC found him guilty of one count of possession and
another count of possession with the intent to sell of Shabu. CA affirmed. On review,
appellant questions the integrity of the evidence used against him on the grounds of
failure to mark the items seized from him immediately and failure to observe the
chain of custody as required under Section 21of R.A. No. 9165.
ISSUE: Whether the failure of the arresting officer to immediately inventory,
photograph the shabu in the presence of the accused as mandated by RA 9165
renders the evidence inadmissible to him.
HELD: YES. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are:(1) the accused
is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;(2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and(3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug. Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the
apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated

Page 18 of 38

and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media

and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. In People v.
Obmiranis, appellant was acquitted due to the flaws in the conduct of the postseizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from appellant, taken
together with the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the
whereabouts of the exhibit before it was offered in evidence in court. In Bondad v.
People, this Court held that the failure to comply with the requirements of the law
compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of
the crimes charged against appellant, hence his acquittal is in order. Andin People v.
De la Cruz, the apprehending team's omission to observe the procedure outlined by
R.A. No. 9165 in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs significantly impairs
the prosecution's case. In the present case the apprehending officer did not made
the inventory immediately after the arrest as mandated but he only signed his
initials once they brought Partoza in the precinct. While this Court recognizes that
non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is
a justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, yet
these conditions were not met in the case at bar. No explanation was offered by PO3
Tougan for his failure to observe the rule. The failure of the prosecution to establish
the chain of custody is fatal to its cause.
a.5) People vs Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009
Facts: Appellant Ruben Robles alias Bombay was charged with illegal sale and illegal
possession of shabu. While the Pilapil playing Cara y Cruz with 10 to 11 persons.
Robles was eating when four persons suddenly arrived carrying firearms. The players
scampered away while Pilapil and a companion were left and arrested. The two
(Pilapil and a companion) were boarded to a jeep which headed toward Robles.
Appellant was frisked and ordered to join Pilapil and brought them to a hospital for a
medical check-up and proceeded to the police station. They were frisked at the said
station but no shabu was recovered. Pilapils companion was released however
Pilapil and Robles were detained and eventually charged.
Issue: Whether or not appellants be acquitted against the chain of custody rule.
Held: Yes, the chain of custody rule requires that testimony be presented about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offered in evidence. Moreover, they did not describe the precautions taken to
ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no

Page 19 of 38

opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession thereof. Additionally,
there was no physical inventory and photograph of the items allegedly confiscated
from appellant. There was likewise no explanation offered for the failure to observe
the rule. The failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of
seized drugs raises doubt as to their origins and negates the operation of the
presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. Hence the appeal was granted
and the appellant was ACQUITTED.
a.6) Sales vs People, G.R.No. 182296, April 7, 2009
Facts: Susan Sales was convicted by the RTC of QC for violating RA 9165. She
appealed the decision of the RTC to the CA but the appeal was denied. Now, the
petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari. Accordingly, PO1 Teresita Reyes,
the police officer assigned at DDEU Camp Karingal, Sikatuna Village, QC received an
information that a certain Susan Sales was selling drugs. The team then planned a
buy bust operation with PO1 Sanchez as the poseur buyer. On Nov. 5, 2002, with the
informant, the team went to conduct the buy bust operation. When they saw Sales,
the informant approached her and introduced PO1 Sanchez as a buyer. When
Sanchez handed the P500 bill marked money and was received by Sales in exchange
of a small plastic sachet containing the 0.14 grams of illegal drugs, the other team
members rushed towards them and arrested Sales.
Issue: WON RTC erred in convicting Sales of violation of RA 9165.
Held: Yes. Supreme Court was convinced that RTC erred in Sales conviction.
Furthermore, SC said that the arresting officers testimony is not only improbable
but also incredible. Specifically, they contended that is was strange for PO1 Teresita
to believe an informant she only met for that day. Also, SC stressed that if Sales was
indeed a peddler, she would know the perils inherent in her illegal trade and would
not simply peddle prohibited drugs openly along a busy street, Scout Tobias, in
broad daylight. Also, The Court finds that neither was physical inventory nor
photograph of the sachet and buy-bust MONEY taken in the presence of petitioner,
or her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, as required by law, was taken. No justification whatsoever
was proffered by the apprehending team for its failure to observe the legal
safeguards. Petitioner Sales was acquitted.

Page 20 of 38

a.7) Carino vs People, G.R.No. 178757, March 13, 2009

Facts: On June 20, 2003 at around 2:00 PM, Eugenio, a district police, spotted
Ronald Carino, about a meter away from their location in Quezon City and holding a
plastic sachet in his hand. They placed Carino under arrest and Eugenio immediately
seized the plastic sachet. They asked Carino who the source of the plastic sachet was
and he immediately identified Rosana Andes. They approached Rosana Andes, and
she allegedly became hysterical when the policemen introduced themselves to
her. It was then that Tayaban noticed the woman inserting something inside the
pocket of her 5-year old male child. Tayaban was suspicious so he inspected the
right pocket of the child and found a plastic sachet inside it
containing shabu. Petitioners were immediately brought to the Galas Police Station.
The plastic sachets were allegedly submitted to the desk officer and then to the
station investigator
The two accused had a different story. Carino claims that he was just walking when
he was grabbed by the police and was made to answer for some plastic sachet that
came from the police. Andes and her son were walking when she was also
approached by the police. She was also detained after she could not produce Php
10,000 that the police demanded.
RTC found both guilty beyond reasonable doubt while CA affirmed such. The
accused then assails decision due to alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the
arresting police officers, as well as on the inadmissibility, for failure to establish the
chain of custody, of the drug specimens supposedly seized from them on account of
the failure of the forensic chemist who signed the chemistry report to testify in
court.
Issue: WON the defendants may be acquitted based on abovementioned issues
raised.
Held: Yes. SC ruled that the prosecution evidence is insufficient to provide the
assurance that the drugs presented in court was the same as that seized from the
accused. Also, for all the people who made contact with the sachets of shabu
allegedly seized from petitioners, only Tayaban and Eugenio were able to testify in
court as to the identity of the evidence. The desk officer at the police station to
whom the specimens were purportedly surrendered by Tayaban and Eugenio was
not even presented in court to observe the identity and uniqueness of the evidence.

Page 21 of 38

Even more to the point is the fact that the testimony of the investigator, who had
taken custody of the plastic sachets after the same were reported to the desk
officer, was likewise not offered in court to directly observe the evidence and admit
the specific markings thereon as his own. The same is true with respect to Jabonillo,
the forensic chemist at the crime laboratory who administered the chemical
examination on the specimens and who could have testified on the circumstances
under which he received the specimen at the laboratory for analysis and testing, as
well as on the conduct of the examination which was administered on the specimen
and what he did with it at the time it was in his possession and custody.
The members of the arresting team in this case; however, do not seem to have
complied with the guidelines imposed on existing drug laws. The prosecution has
not even shown that they had extended reasonable efforts to comply with the
statutory requirements in handling the evidence. From the testimonies of Tayaban
and Eugenio, it is clear that after the arrest of petitioners they immediately seized
the plastic sachets, took custody thereof and brought the same to the police station
together with petitioners. It was at the police stationand not at the place where
the item was seized from appellantwhere, according to Tayaban and Eugenio, the
unnamed police investigator had placed the markings on the specimens. What is
more telling is the admission made by Tayaban to the effect that the markings were
placed on the plastic sachet in his presence and not in the presence of petitioners as
required by law.
These flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug
allegedly recovered from petitioners, taken together with the failure of the key
persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts of the exhibits before
they were offered in evidence in court, militate against the prosecutions cause
because they not only cast doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti but also tend
to negate, if not totally discredit, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official
police operation.
Carino and Andes were acquitted.
a.8) People vs Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009
Facts: A buy-bust operation was made on February 2003 in San Roque Church in
Metro Manila where PO1 Samuel Garcia acted as a poseur-buyer where he was
arranged to buy Marijuana from a certain drug pusher identified as Ruiz Garcia. PO1
Garcia, upon the arrival of Ruiz, handed over the marked money and received from

Page 22 of 38

the accused a small brick of dried suspected Marijuana fruiting tops. Garcia was
charged in the RTC of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165
or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The defendant assailed the
courts decision but was later affirmed in the court of Appeals.
Contention of the Accused: Ruiz claimed that the case was a trumped-up charge
made by the police to extort money from him and no sufficient evidence was
produced to support the prosecutions contention.
Issue: WON there is a violation of the chain of custody rule on seized drugs.
Ruling: Yes. The chain of custody is essential to the case to ensure the doubts
regarding the identity doubts regarding the identity of the evidence are removed
through the monitoring and tracking of the movements of the seized drugs from the
accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. Even though
PO1 Garcia managed to identify the buyer and the seller in the case, the
prosecutions evidence failed to establish the chain that would have shown that the
marijuana presented in court was the very item seized from Ruiz at the time of his
arrest. The first crucial link in the chain of custody is that the brick of marijuana have
only been marked as evidence upon its delivery in the police station which should be
marked at the time the arrest was made. The second link in the chain of custody was
that the identity of the police investigator whom the brick of marijuana was turned
over was not disclosed and the evidence on record relating to the subsequent links in
the chain of custody from the police inspector to the PNP Crime Laboratory did
not identify the person who submitted the seized marijuana to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. At the same time, the identity of the person who had
the custody and safekeeping of the seized marijuana, after it was chemically
analyzed pending its presentation in court, was also not disclosed.
Sentence of the SC: The accused has been acquitted and immediately released.
a.9) People vs Obmiranis, G.R.No. 181492, December 16, 2008
Facts: In accordance to the testimony of Velasco, an entrapment was staged upon
one Obmiranis, who was alleged to be a drug pusher. The former with marked 500
peso bill among proceeds went to inquire to purchase shabu from the latter. After
bringing out said shabu, and recognizing that the formers colleague was an officer,

Page 23 of 38

the latter tried to escape to his car, but was arrested thereafter. Later on the said
shabu was brought to the PNP laboratory and was found out yielding to be positive
for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, but as the chain of custody was somewhat
lacking, such evidence was not sure as to its origin, whether that object be from the
crime of this case or not. It is to be noted that the prosecution solely relied on the
testimony of Velasco and disregarded the chain of custody of the said drug including
that it was Velascos colleague, Cico, who took into custody said drug and that he
had allegedly placed a mark on said drug.
Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt under RA 9165?
Held: The identity of the dangerous drug was not established beyond reasonable
doubt, since its origin was unknown and it was not certain since the chain of custody
is lacking.
Reasonable safeguards are provided for in our drugs laws to protect the identity and
integrity of narcotic substances and dangerous drugs seized and/or recovered from
drug offenders. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 materially requires the apprehending
team having initial custody and control of the drugs to, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The same requirements are
also found in Section 2 of its implementing rules as well as in Section 2 of the
Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002.
In the case at bar, the sole witness, Velasco never mentioned that the identifying
mark on the specimen was placed in the accuseds presence; nor did he even
remember if the specimen had been properly inventoried and photographed at least
in appellants presence. Even more telling is the fact that, as elicited from Velasco
himself during his cross-examination, no evidence custodian had been designated by
the raiding team to safeguard the identity and integrity of the evidence supposedly
seized from appellant.
Hence, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thereby
the accused is acquitted.
a.10) Bondad vs People, G.R.No. 173804, December 10, 2008
Facts: A confidential informant reported to the police about the rampant sale
of shabu in a billiard hall along Bonifacio Avenue, Barangka, Marikina City and
named a certain alias Jun as the vendor. Police formed a buy-bust team and
proceeded, together with the confidential informant, 3 Cs billiard hall at the corner

Page 24 of 38

of M. Cruz St. and Bonifacio Avenue in Barangka, Marikina City. On entering the hall,
the confidential informant pointed to appellant who was then holding a cue stick
beside the billiard table as the alias Jun. Appellant approached PO2 Dano and
asked him if he wanted to buy shabu, to which PO2 Dano answered piso
lang. Appellant at once took out a Vicks container from his right front
pocket which, when opened, yielded heat-sealed plastic sachets containing
substances suspected to beshabu. From the container, appellant drew out one
sachet in exchange for which PO2 Dano gave the marked one hundred peso bill. At
that instant, PO2 Dano removed his cap signifying the closing-in of police officers
wherein Bondad was apprehended.
Bondad, a former policeman pala, denies the allegations. He claims that he was
playing billiards when a police officer handcuffed him. Another person who was at
his back pushed him out of the billiard hall in the course of which he felt PO2
Brubio reaching his (appellants) right front pocket, drawing him to restrain the
hand of PO2 Brubio, telling him pera ko yan! Aware that his son was inside the
billiard hall, appellant summoned and handed him his wallet
containing P2,000. PO2 Brubio, however, took the wallet from his son, telling him
Huwag ka makialam dito. He was then made to board a car and taken to the
Office of the SAIDSOTF at the police station.
RTC found him guilty of RA 9265 and sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment whereas
CA affirmed such decision but modified the sentence to 12 to 13 years.
Issue: Could Bondad be acquitted due based on alleged non-compliance with the
chain of custody?
Held: Yes. Bondad was acquitted by SC due to failure to comply with the
requirements of the law compromised in the identity of the items seized, which is
the corpus delicti of each crimes charged. Specifically, Appellant claims that there
was failure to follow the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, hence, it
compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized items. A
reading of the testimony of the poseur-buyer, PO2 Dano indeed confirms appellants
claim that no physical inventory and photographing of the drugs took place: We
did not make inventory because we simply brought the evidence confiscated. Clearly
then, the apprehending police officers failed to comply with the above-quoted

Page 25 of 38

provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. In the present case, by PO2 Danos claim,
he immediately marked the seized items which were brought to the Crime
Laboratory for examination. By his admission, however, he did not conduct an
inventory of the items seized. Worse, no photograph of the items was taken. There
was thus failure to faithfully follow the requirements of the law.
a.11) People vs Magat, G.R. No. 179939, September 29, 2008
FACTS : On the afternoon of June 9, 2003 at about 430 PM a team of policemen,
acting on a validated report from a concerned citizen that appellant, Geraldine
Magat, was engaged in selling drugs, descended on the house of said appellant. PO1
Phillip Santos of the Drug Enforcement Unit of Meycauayan Police Station
approached appellant as she was standing in front of her house and asked Ate,
meron bang dalawang piso? Appellant then went inside the house and upon
returning gave a plastic sachet, PO1 Santos then gave her the 2 marked PHP 100
bills. At which time appellant was informed that she was being arrested for violation
of RA 9165.In a decision by Branch 78, RTC of Malolos dated February 21, 2006,
appellant was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11
of RA 9165. On appeal, the CA in a decision dated June 7, 2007 affirmed the lower
courts decision.
ISSUE : Did the trial court err in convicting appellant despite the prosecutors failure
to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs?
RULING : Yes, the Court ruled that in all criminal prosecutions for violations of RA
9165 the following elements must in all criminal prosecutions for violations of RA
9165 the following elements must be proved: (1) that the transaction took place, (2)
corpus delicti presented as evidence. In case atbar, Section 21 of RA 9165 was not
complied with as PO1 Santos admitted markings of evidence (2 heat sealed sachets)
were done at the police station and not in the place of arrest, no inventory or
photographs were taken of confiscated items, no representatives of media, the DOJ,
and any elected public official was present to to sign the inventory of seized items.
PO1 Santos marked the evidence without the presence of the accused, ergo,
corpus delicti in this case is not legally extant. Decision of the lower court is reversed
and set-aside. Appellant is acquitted on the grounds of reasonable doubt and
released.

Page 26 of 38

a.12) People vs Orteza, G.R.No. 173051, July 31, 2007

Facts: Police officers conducted a buy-bust operation at Block 9, San Nicolas, Tarlac
City on 19 November 2002 to apprehend suspected drug peddlers who have
previously been under a week-long surveillance after the police officers received
reports about their illegal activities. The team arrived at the place at around 9:00
PM. Appointed poseur-buyer SPO1 Ramos, together with the informant, approached
the two (2) suspects Leng Leng and Gerardo Orteza while the back-up team
positioned itself nearby. SPO1 Ramos purchased one (1) sachet of shabu for One
Hundred Pesos (P100.00) from Buboy. Then, SPO1 Ramos gave the pre-arranged
signal. Immediately, the rest of the team rushed to the scene and placed the two (2)
suspects under arrest. After a body search, the marked money was recovered from
Buboy and another sachet of shabu was confiscated from Leng Leng. Later upon
examination, the Regional Crime Laboratory, Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga,
confirmed that the two (2) sachets recovered from the scene were positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Orteza nonetheless maintains that he was picked up by the police from his house
then was taken to Camp Macabulos. He denied having knowledge of the drugs and
in knowing Leng-Leng. But both RTC and CA believed the prosecution.
Issue: Is Orteza guilty of violating RA 9165?
Held: NO. SC said that the prosecution failed to establish with certainty all the
elements necessary for conviction of Orteza. First of all the police were said as to
have not complied with the proper procedure in the custody of the seized drugs
wherein they failed to photograph the confiscated stuff along with Orteza; also
fingerprint examination was not conducted to determine if the drugs were handled
by Orteza. Also, the poseur-buyer was not presented in the Court even if SPO1
Ramos was subpoenaed 6 times already. SC said that his non-presentation in the
case was fatal. It was also noted that it was befuddling that Leng-Leng was not
prosecuted for the same crime despite his alleged involvement.
In the end, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the
elements of the offense. Accordingly, the presumption of innocence should prevail
and the exoneration of appellant declared as a matter of right. Orteza was
ACQUITTED.

Page 27 of 38

b) Cases of conviction even if there is no compliance with the chain of custody rule
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE IN DRUG CASES (RA 9165)
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DANTE L. DUMALAG G.R. No. 180514 April
17, 2013, Philippine Supreme Court)
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items x x x. (Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 on the handling and
disposition of seized dangerous drugs)
It has already been settled that the failure of police officers to mark the items seized
from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon its confiscation at the place
of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody and
render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. In People v. Resurreccion, the
Court explained that marking of the seized items immediately after seizure and
confiscation may be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of
arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. It
was further emphasized that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in
the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
The Court elaborated in this wise:
Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not
automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.
The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165 does not necessarily
render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him

Page 28 of 38
inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination
of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
As we held in People v. Cortez, testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.
Accused-appellant broaches the view that SA Isidoros failure to mark the
confiscated shabu immediately after seizure creates a reasonable doubt as to the
drugs identity. People v. Sanchez, however, explains that RA 9165 does not specify
a time frame for immediate marking, or where said marking should be done:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify
is the matter of marking of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that
the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory
and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather
than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the chain of custody rule requires 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.
To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that
the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate
confiscation. Immediate confiscation has no exact definition. Thus, in People v.
Gum-Oyen, testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police
station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with
the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates
even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.
(Emphases supplied, citations omitted.)
There is no question herein that the confiscated sachets of shabu and related
paraphernalia were inventoried and marked in the presence of accused-appellant at
the police station where he was brought right after his arrest.

b.1) People vs de Leon, G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010

Facts: Prosecution testified that on the afternoon, an informant arrived at a police
station alleging Rodante De Leon on such illegal activities. Thereafter Police Officers
conduct for a buy-bust operation. Later, the team proceeded to the place where the
informant introduced. As as result of their operation the appellant was arrested and
was brought to the police station for investigation. Upon experimentation of a
Forensic Chemical Officer it was positive of Methyl amphetamine Hydrochloride.
Issue: Whether or not appellant liable even without the compliance of chain of
custody rule.

Page 29 of 38

Held: Yes. Non-compliance with Sec. 21 does not render an accuseds arrest illegal or
the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is essential is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused. In the instant case, there was substantial compliance with the law and the
integrity of the drugs seized from appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of
the drugs subject matter of the case was shown not to have been broken. The
examination was conducted by one Engr. Jabonillo, a Forensic Chemical Officer,
whose stipulated testimony clearly established the chain of custody of the
specimens he received. Thus, it is without a doubt that there was an unbroken chain
of custody of the illicit drug purchased from appellant. Hence, the appeal was
denied and appellant was CONVICTED.
b.2) People vs Cruz, G.R.No. 185381, December 16, 2009
FACTS: On June 24, 2003, at about 11 oclock PM, a police informant came to the
Drug Enforcement Unit of the Taguig City police and reported that a certain Danilo
Cruz alias boy was dealing in illegal drugs at his residence in Wawa, Taguig. The
police immediately formed a buy-bust operation composed o PO3 Arago acting as
poseur-buyer, with other policemen. They marked 2 P100 bills with the buyers
initials, DBA, on the upper corner.
At around 11:45PM, operation was conducted. The informant and Arago went to the
house of Boy while their companions stayed nearby. Boy came out after being called
and was introduced by the informant to Arago who then asked Pare meron ka b
dyan?. Boy asked Magkano ba?, to which arago replied Kasang dos lang,
meaning P200. Boy then gave Arago a plastic sachet containing shabu in exchange
for the marked money. Thereupon Arago wiped his face with a white towel as
prearranged signal to his companions to arrest Boy. Appellant attempted to flee but
Arago held him by the arm. He was then ordered to empty his pockets for any
concealed weapon but retrieved 2 more plastic sachets of shabu instead. He was
charged and convicted of violation of Sec 5 and 11, Art II of RA 9165 or
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
ISSUE: WON police officers failed to observe the proper procedure in the custody of
seized prohibited items pursuant to RA 9165
HELD: NO. The facts clearly show a typical buy-bust operation as a form of
entrapment. The officers conduct was within the acceptable standards. The
prosecution also presented the specimens examined, the corpus delicti, in court, as
well as forensic evidence showing it to be shabu. Appellant asserts that the police
officers failed to properly make an inventory of the shabu allegedly recovered form
him. He further argues that they also failed to photograph or make the shabu

Page 30 of 38

immediately after operation in his presence, or his counsel, a representative from

the media, a representative from the DOJ, or any elected public official as provided
by the IRR of RA 9165. The IRR, however, providesd that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, shall
not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. It is clear,
therefore, that what is essential is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items.
In the case at bar, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of
the drugs seized was preserved. The chain of custody was established by the
testimony of the witnesses. On the spot where appellant was arrested, Arago
marked the sachets of shabu with the initials of the appellant. The other 2 sachets
found in his person were also marked with his initials. The testimony of the officer
who conducted the forensic examination was however dispensed with after the
prosecutor and defense counsel stipulated that the specimens submitted tested
positive for shabu and that the said specimen were regularly examined by said
witness. It is therefore clear that the chain of custody was unbroken. The integrity of
the object evidence has not, in fine, been compromised. APPEAL DENIED. Conviction
AFFIRMED.
b.3) People vs Ventura, G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009
Facts: Appellants Grace and Danilo Ventura were charged with illegal sale of shabu
in violation of RA 9165. The pertinent facts are as follows: PO2 Sarmiento and PO3
Magsakay testified that they received information from a citizen and reports
received by DILG Sec. Joey Lina alleging the involvement of Danilo Danny Ventura
(father of appellant) and appellant in illegal drugs trade. A surveillance operation
was made after receiving this, thereafter they conduct a buy-bust operation. As a
result the suspects were brought to the police for further investigation.
Issue: Whether or not appellants be convicted even without the compliance of chain
of custody rule
Held: Yes, All documentary, testimonial, and object pieces of evidence, prove that
the substance tested by the forensic chemist, whose laboratory tests were welldocumented, was the same as that taken from accused-appellant. The foregoing
evidence established and preserved the identity of the confiscated shabu. In the
case at bar the evidence clearly shows that accused-appellant was involved in the
buy-bust operation. Having been caught in flagrante delicto, accused-appellants
participation cannot be doubted. Hence, judgment was affirmed Appellant was
convicted.

Page 31 of 38

Note: Non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds,

shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as
long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officers. Clearly, the purpose of the procedure outlined in the
implementing rules is centered on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items.
b.4) People vs Lazaro, G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009
Facts: SPO1 Inundan, SPO1 Lingbawan and PO3 Lubos III members of CIDG, AIDT
Unit in Baguio City received an information that a certain Alfredo Lazaro, Jr. was
selling illegal drugs. The team then planned a buy-bust operation, SPO1 Inundan as
the poseur-buyer. 3 one hundred peso bills were the marked money. On June 15,
2004, the team, together with the informant, went to the house of Lazaro, Jr. at 181
km 3, Central Bakakeng, Baguio City and conducted the buy-bust operation. The
informant introduced SPO1 Indunan and told Lazaro, Jr. that he is going to purchase
300 peso worth of "shabu". Appellant then went inside a room at the third floor and
came out with a green box containing small sachets of "shabu" and handed one to
SPO1 Inundan in exchange of 300 pesos. The other team members then rushed to
them and arrested the appellant and frisked him. The RTC convicted him. From this
conviction, he appeals.
Issue: WON he is guilty of violating R.A. 9165.
Held: The CA sustained the decision of the RTC. The testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses regarding appellants illegal sale and possession of shabu are consistent
with the documentary and object evidence submitted by the prosecution. The
defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed by this Court with
disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in
prosecutions for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act.
b.5) People vs Resurreccion, G.R.No. 186380, October 12, 2009
Facts: An informant went to the NBI Special Task Force office on July 13, 2000
wherein the drug activities of a certain Manuel Resurreccion were reported. NBI
team headed to Matias St. in Pasay City on board five vehicles. Poseur-buyer/Police
Vallejo testified that he and the informant waited for Manuel Resurreccion to arrive
while the rest of the buy-bust team hid within the vicinity. Resurreccion arrived at
around 3:30 PM. After introduction Resurreccion handed to Vallejo a green plastic
bag and demanded payment. Vallejo took out a white envelope containing the
marked money and gave it to accused-appellant. Once accused-appellant had the

Page 32 of 38

white envelope in his hand, Vallejo announced that he was a law enforcer and that
he was conducting a buy-bust. He then alerted the rest of the team via radio
transmitter that the operation had just concluded. Vallejo then gave the green
plastic bag to Isidoro, who counted 10 small plastic bags inside containing suspected
shabu. The specimens were marked at the office and brought to the Forensic
Chemistry Division for laboratory examination.
Resurreccion on the other hand, as collaborated by his maid, testified that he and a
PWD friend was talking when 3 men barged in the house at around 11 AM and
manhandled him. They dragged him and proceeded to the NBI, with physical
beatings all the way. The NBI demanded money from him but he was not able to
give any.
RTC found Resurreccion guilty of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) as
amended by RA 7659 while CA affirmed such decision.
Issue: Was Resurreccion guilty of RA 6425?
Held: Yes. SC affirmed the conviction of Resurreccion. The accuseds contention that
they are inconsistencies in the testimonial evidence is immaterial because
Inconsistencies referring to who the informant talked to at the NBI office, how
many informants there were, and how many vehicles were used, are not material.
These matters were not necessary to establish the elements of the crimes
committed. The inconsistencies do not detract from the elements of the offense of
illegal sale of drugs, which the prosecution adequately established. Also, The
failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165 does not necessarily
render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
b.6) People vs Teodoro, G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009
Facts: A buy-bust operation was conducted in Mandaluyong City. PO1 Climacosa was
designated as poseur-buyer while the remaining members of the team served as
back up. At the same time, PSI Gadiano coordinated with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on the conduct of the buy-bust operation. PO1
Climacosa approached the accused, Frederick Richie Teodoro, in a gate of a certain
house in Barangay Hulo and gave the marked bills (dalawang 100 peso bills po yun)
and the accused-appellant handed in turn a sachet of shabu. Climacosa then

Page 33 of 38

introduced himself as a police officer which made the accused ran away but was
later on accosted and was frisked positive for possessing the marked bills and
sachets of shabu. He was then taken to the hospital for medical checkup and was
later turned over to the police station of the city of Mandaluyong. The accused was
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in the CFI
(court of first instance).
Contention of the accused: The accused contended that he had been framed up and
primarily assails the non-presentation of the confidential asset to establish that he
was indeed peddling drugs
Issue: WON the chain of custody has been broken.
Ruling: NO. After the seizure of the drugs from the accused, Climacosa and PO1
Antipisado marked the sachet of shabu which was immediately forwarded to the
PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. There can be no doubt that the drugs seized
from appellant were the same ones examined in the crime laboratory. Plainly, the
prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the
seized shabu from the time they were first discovered until they were brought for
examination. Also, accused-appellant never questioned the custody and disposition
of the drug that was taken from him in the proceedings before the RTC. In fact, he
stipulated that the drugs subject matter of this case were examined by PSI
Lourdeliza Cejes.
Sentence of the Court: The Court AFFIRMS the May 27, 2008 Decision of the Court
of Appeals establishing the guilt of the accused.
b.7) People vs Gum-oyen, G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009
Facts: On 5 February 2003, Police received a report from a police asset that a certain
Eddie would deliver marijuana to Naguilian, La Union. Through this a buy bust
operation was held. Around 11:30 a.m, appellant arrived at the place on board a
tricycle. Carrying a blue bag, he alighted therefrom and talked to the police asset.
Appellant partially opened in a brown-colored plastic from his bag and gave it to the
police asset. After smelling the object, the police asset handed the buy-bust money
to appellant. While appellant was counting the money, the buy-bust team identified
themselves as policemen, arrested him, apprised him of his rights and frisked him
for dangerous weapons. Appellants bag yielded 3 more marijuana bricks. At the

Page 34 of 38

police station, the confiscated items were marked. Appellant was presented to the
Mayor and photographs were taken.
For his defense appellant claims that he had been instigated to commit the offenses
charged. He claimed that a police informer gave him money and instructed him to
buy the marijuana. Later on, it was also the police informer who gave the instruction
to give one marijuana brick to the poseur-buyer / policeman.
RTC found him guilty for the crime of marijuana but innocent on the illegal sale of
marijuana. CA affirmed the said judgment.
Issue: Could Gum-oyens guilt in violating RA 9165 be proven even if there is a
supposed unbroken chain of custody as he claims?
Held: Yes. The prosecution's evidence sufficiently established the unbroken chain of
custody of the seized drugs beginning from the entrapment team, to the
investigating officer, to the forensic chemist whose laboratory tests were welldocumented, up to the time there were offered in evidence. The chain-of-custody
rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.
The Court also finds that the arresting officers strictly complied with the guidelines
prescribed by law regarding the custody and control of the seized drugs. There was
testimony regarding the marking of the seized items at the police station and in the
presence of appellant. Likewise there was mention that an elected official was
present during the inventory. In addition, it appears on record that the team
photographed the contraband in accordance with law. Absent any indication that
the police officers were ill-motivated in testifying against appellant, full credence
should be given to their testimonies. In sum, contrary to appellants lone argument,
the prosecution established the corpus delicti with moral certainty.
Finally, it bears underscoring that appellant himself admitted that he was carrying
marijuana at the time of his arrest and even though he knew it was against the law
to so possess it in any amount. Hence, the lower courts aptly held him liable for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Appealed judgment of conviction is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

Page 35 of 38

b.8) People vs Llamado, G.R. No. 185278, March 13, 2009

Facts: On February 12, 2005 in Marikina,( the never-ending) buy-bust operation was
conducted. PO2 Ferdinand Brubio is the Poseur-buyer. After arriving at the area,
Brubio along with the informant approached the accused Rolando Llamado and gave
him the marked money (dalawang 100 peso bill) which was dusted with fluorescent
powder. In exchange, accused-appellant gave a sachet of shabu to Brubio. During
the transaction, a blonde-haired male approached the accused and bought a sachet
of the prohibited drugs. Brubio then introduced himself as a police officer and
arrested the accused-appellant and the blonde-haired male who unfortunately
escaped. Brubio marked the sachet of shabu afterwards. Llamado was then taken to
the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force where the affidavit of arrest and
request for laboratory examination and urine test were prepared. Thereafter, PO2
Brubio personally brought appellant to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory, together with the confiscated shabu and the request for laboratory
examination. The RTC held that Rolando Llamado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
Contention of the accused: He denied having held of the buy-bust money nor
the selling of the shabu.
Issue: WON the chain of custody has been broken.
Ruling: No. The defense of the accused is unavailing. The prosecution positively
identified appellant as the seller of the substance which was found to be
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Appellant sold the drug to
PO2 Brubio, a police officer who acted as poseur-buyer for a sum of P200.00. The
prosecution positively and categorically testified that the transaction or sale actually
took place. The subject shabu weighing 0.02 grams and the money amounting to
P200.00 pesos were likewise identified by the prosecution witnesses when
presented in court. The absence of taking photographs of the policemen was not
fatal to the presentation of the evidence. What determines if there was a sale of
dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense. The
prosecution satisfactorily proved the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and presented
in court evidence of corpus delicti.PO2 Brubio was able to put the necessary
markings on the sachet of shabu bought from appellant, for identification purposes,

Page 36 of 38

immediately after the consummation of the drug sale. He personally delivered the
same specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis on the same day
the entrapment was conducted. Lastly, PO2 Brubio was able to identify the said
markings in court.
Sentence of SC: Rolando Llamado is guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165.
b.9) People vs Macatingag, G.R. No. 181037, January 19, 2009
Facts: On January 17, 2004, about 8:00 AM police members formed a buy-bust team
because of a report from a confidential informant about the drug pushing activities
of a certain SAIDAMEN MACATINGAG alias Sai,. About 11:30 AM, PO3 Garcia and
the informant waited for appellant at the entrance gate of Villa Antonio Subdivision
in San Pablo City. Some 20 minutes later, appellant arrived and was introduced to
PO3 Garcia. Appellant and PO3 Garcia subsequently exchanged drugs and money
respectively whrein PO3 Garcia gave the pre-arranged signal to PO3 Leona. PO3
Leona thereupon hurriedly seized from appellant the marked money, while PO3
Garcia recovered the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from appellant. The
policemen thereafter brought appellant to their station in Canlubang, Calamba City.
The seized plastic sachet were marked and inventoried before being examined by
the PNP Crime Laboratory.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. He maintained that he was at
home with his wife on January 17, 2004 when four armed men suddenly entered
their house, seized his money, placed handcuffs on his wrists, and forcibly brought
him to the police headquarters in Bgy. Canlubang. He averred that he was not
allowed to talk with anybody when he was incarcerated for two days and that he
was alone during the preliminary investigation. Thereafter, he was transferred to
the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) in San Pablo City, where he
was formally charged with selling shabu.
RTC found appellant guilty of RA 9165 and sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT. CA
affirmed in toto the ruling of the trial court.
Issue: Could MACATINGAG be convicted even if there is an alleged non compliance
with the chain of custody rule?
Held: Yes. MACATINGAGs instant appeal was denied and his sentence was affirmed.
The elements (1the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and 2 the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor )

Page 37 of 38

necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs have been proven to be present
in the instant case.
PO3 Garcia who acted as the poseur-buyer, categorically testified about the buybust operation from the time he was introduced by the informant to appellant as
the buyer of the shabu; to the time when appellant agreed to the sale; to the actual
exchange of the marked money and the heat-sealed sachet containing a white
crystalline substance; and until the apprehension of appellant.
SC finds no merit in contention that the police failed to comply with the guidelines
on the chain of custody and disposition of the seized sachet of shabu as provided in
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Testimonies of prosecution witnesses
convincingly state that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized item
were properly preserved by the apprehending officers:
P03 Garcia testified that he marked the sachet of shabu with his initials,
and the date and time of appellants arrest.
PO3 Leona confirmed that he had seen PO3 Garcia mark the same sachet
of shabu sold by appellant; that a letter of request for the examination of
said sachet was made; and such request was received by the regional crime
laboratory office.
The identity of the corpus delicti has been properly preserved and established by the
prosecution. The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved unless there
is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with;
something that the appellant had failed to prove.

b.10) People vs del Monte, G.R.No. 179940, April 23, 2008

Facts: Norberto Del Monte was charged of delivering and transporting 0.290 grams
of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride. A buy bust operation was conducted after
the police came to know of Del Montes antics. A team was formed composed of
SPO2 Hashim S. Maung, as team leader, PO1 Gaudencio Tolentino, Jr. as the poseurbuyer, and PO1 Antonio Barreras as back-up operative. After briefings, the team
proceeded to Del Monte. The informant introduced PO1 Tolentino to appellant as
his friend, saying "Barkada ko, user." PO1 Tolentino rendered the appellant P300.00
consisting of three marked P100 bills. The bills were marked with "GT JR," PO1
Tolentinos initials. Upon receiving the P300.00, appellant took out a plastic sachet
from his pocket and handed it over to PO1 Tolentino. As fixed signal, PO1 Tolentino
burned a cigarette telling the team that the sale had been consummated. PO1
Barreras arrived, arrested appellant and recovered from the latter the money that
has been used in the buy bust operation. The substance was submitted to the

Page 38 of 38

laboratory for confirmation, further affirmed the substance to be the drug

prohibited by law.
When Del Monte was arrested, the pictures of him together with the alleged
confiscated shabu were not taken immediately upon his arrest. Del Monte also
claims that PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Barreras did not conduct a physical inventory of
the same in his presence as shown by their joint affidavit of arrest. This is, according
to the appel of Del Monte, in violation of Sec 21 of RA 9165, and also casts doubt on
Del Montes arrest and the admissibility of the evidence adduced against him.
Issue: WON the evidence to charge Del Monte could be admitted in court
warranting his conviction to RA 9165.
Held: Yes, the evidence could be admitted thus warranting Del Montes conviction
to RA 9165. SC rules that non-compliance to Sec 21 of RA 9165 will not render an
accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized / confiscated from him inadmissible as
per People v Pringas. The court said that what were more important was the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.
Furthermore, SC said that For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or
rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be
admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts.
The judgment convicting Del Monte was affirmed.
*** Nothing Follows ***