Avella Garcia vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 128213, December 13, 2005
Azcuna, J.:
Facts: Alberto and Avella entered into an agreement for the sale of the formers house
and lot for P1.2 million pesos. An earnest money in the amount of ten thousand pesos
(P10, 000) was given to Alberto by Avella. On even date, one hundred and fifty-five
thousand pesos (P155, 000) was delivered by Avella representing the down payment for
the house and lot. A subsequent payment of five thousand pesos (P5, 000) was made.
Avella prepared two identical receipts with respect to this last transaction in her own
handwriting. Later on, the relationship between the parties turned sour. Avella filed a
complaint for estafa against Alberto for his failure to execute a deed of sale and deliver
the subject property. As evidence, she submitted a copy of the receipt she prepared.
However, said receipt appeared to have been altered in the following manner: 1) the
word fifty was inserted before the word five on the second line of the receipt to read
fifty five thousand instead of five thousand; 2) the number 5 was inserted before
5,000.00 on the third line of the receipt so that it would read 55,000.00; 3) additional
words were inserted in the last sentence of the receipt which reads, Now covered by
T.C.T. # 3998 R.D. Mandaluyong MM. the parties agree to execute of valid deed of
conveyance covering the same sale; 4) on the date January 21 the number 4 was
superimposed so that it would read as January 24 instead; and 5) there now appears
the amount of 55,000.00 and below it the word value on the upper left hand corner of
the receipt. Alberto on the other hand, instituted a criminal action against Avella for
falsification of private document (Art 172 (2) in relation to Art 171 (6) of RPC). On her
defense, Avella admitted that she did in fact alter the receipt but claims that it was done
in the presence and at the request of Alberto. The trial court ruled against Avella. On
appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification as to the penalty.
Hence, this petition for review.
Issue: Whether or not Avella could be held criminally liable for the crime charged.
Held: Yes. The elements of the crime of falsification under Article 171 (6) of the Revised
Penal Code are: (1) that there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a
document; (2) that it was made on a genuine document; (3) that the alteration or
intercalation has changed the meaning of the document; and (4) that the changes made
the document speak something false. When these are committed by a private individual
on a private document the violation would fall under paragraph 2, Article 172 of the
same code, but there must be, in addition to the aforesaid elements, independent
evidence of damage or intention to cause the same to a third person. Given the
admissions of Avella that she altered the receipt, and without convincing evidence that
the alteration was with the consent of private complainant, the Court holds that all four
(4) elements have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As to the requirement of
damage, this is readily apparent as it was made to appear that Alberto had
receivedP50, 000 when in fact he did not. Hence, Avellas conviction.

Leopoldo Oani vs. People of the Philippines

Gr No. 139984, March 31, 2005
Callejo, Sr. J.:
Facts: Panabo High School received an amount of P648, 532.00 from DECS for
MOOE. P551, 439.13 of which were earmarked for the purchase of supplies, materials
and equipment. Later on, DECS Secretary received a letter from the PTA of said school
regarding the investigation of Oani (Principal) and Bonifacio Roa (Resident Auditor) of
the alleged overpricing of 12 fire extinguishers for P15, 000.00 each. A team of auditors
were assigned to investigate the matter. Said team discovered that instead of
conducting a public bidding, Oani opt to purchase the fire extinguishers from the
Powerline Manufacturing Industry for P54, 747.00 which after re-canvass, discovered
that each unit could be purchased only for P2, 970.00. Oani also approved a Requisition
and Issue Voucher for a set of Stereo Amplifier and components. Contract was awarded
to ASM Marketing. Complete set of amplifiers was purchased for the price
of P35,650.00. Later on, canvass forms were distributed to business enterprises for the
purchase of office supplies. The contract was awarded to Red Lion Marketing for the
price of P61, 912.35. Oani once again approved the purchase of supplies awarded to
the Red Lion Marketing for P111, 912.35. The Auditing Team conducted a review of the
prices of the stereo set and school and office supplies, and discovered that they could
be purchased for only P144, 621.51 instead of the P227, 857.45 and recommended the
filing of administrative and criminal complaints for violations of Rep. Act No. 3019
against Oani and Roa.
Oani admitted that no public bidding was conducted prior to the purchase and delivery
of the fire extinguishers, but averred that he was authorized to purchase the same by
negotiation pursuant to COA Circular No. 91-368 and Article 7, Section 442 of (GARR),
stating that the company is the only authorized and duly-licensed manufacturer and
exclusive distributor of Powerline fire extinguishers brand, and that no other dealer, subdealer or distributor was appointed or authorized to sell his major line products. Oani
averred that a canvass of prices was done for the purchase of the office and school
supplies, and that the Bidding Committee awarded the contract to ASM Marketing
based on the abstract of bids placed by the suppliers at the scheduled bidding. He then
approved the purchase orders for the supplies to ASM Marketing which delivered the
equipment. The same procedure was followed for the purchase of the office supplies.
He asserted that the law and the COA procedures were followed in the bidding process
and the purchase of school and office supplies. After trial, the Sandiganbayan
promulgated a decision acquitting Roa, but convicting Oani of the crimes charged.
Hence, this petition.
Issue: Whether or not the guilt of the petitioner was proven beyond reasonable doubt to
convict him of violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019.

Held: Petitioner is wrong. COA Circular No. 78-84 dated August 1, 1978, provides that
negotiated contracts may be entered into under certain conditions. However, none of
the conditions existed when the petitioner purchased the fire extinguishers on a
negotiated basis from Powerline. The petitioner did not require Cunanan to submit any
certification from the Department of Trade and Industry that he was the exclusive
distributor or manufacturer of fire extinguishers. Neither did he require Cunanan to
certify or execute an affidavit that no sub dealer had been designated to sell the said
product at a lower price. The petitioner failed to ascertain whether a suitable substitute
could be obtained elsewhere, under terms more advantageous to the government. It
turned out that as declared by the trial court, another business enterprise, Systems
Products Industries, was selling the same brand and specifications at only P2,900.00
per unit. Finally, accused Oani failed to present proof that no suitable substitute can be
obtained elsewhere at more advantageous terms to the government, as thus, required
by COA Circular 78-84, series of 1978.
In Danville Maritime, Inc. v. Commission on Audit,[33] the Court emphasized that By its
very nature and characteristic, a competitive public bidding aims to protect the public
interest by giving the public the best possible advantages thru open competition.
Another self-evident purpose of public bidding is to avoid or preclude suspicion of
favoritism and anomalies in the execution of public contracts. Public bidding of
government contracts and for disposition of government assets have the same purpose
and objectives. Their only difference, if at all, is that in the public bidding for public
contracts the award is generally given to the lowest bidder while in the disposition of
government assets the award is to the highest bidder.
In a public bidding, there must be competition that is legitimate, fair and honest. The
three principles of a public bidding are the offer to the public; an opportunity for
competition; and a basis for exact comparison of bids. A contract granted without the
competitive bidding required by law is void, and the party to whom it is awarded cannot
benefit from it. In the present case, the petitioner purchased the fire extinguishers and
office and school supplies without the benefit of a public bidding, in gross and evident
bad faith, resulting in the considerable overpricing of the fire extinguishers and the
supplies, to the gross prejudice of the government.

People of the Philippines vs. Roldan Morales y Midarasa

GR No. 172873, March 19, 2010
Del Castillo, J.:
Facts: PO1 Eduardo Roy prepared a pre-arranged report on the buy-bust operation to be
conducted against appellant (Morales) at Barangay San Vicente, Quezon City upon an
informants tip that appellant was selling shabu in the said area. On the other hand, PO3
Armando Ragundiaz Rivera recorded the briefing, summary, identification of appellant and the
buy-bust money to be used in the operation consisting of one (1) fifty peso bill, two (2)
twenty peso bill[s] and one (1) ten peso bill. PO1 Roy who acted as the poseur-buyer and
PO3 Rivera as his back-up proceeded to University Avenue corner Commonwealth Avenue,
Barangay San Vicente, Quezon City together with the informant.
PO1 Roy and the informant met appellant at the parking lot of Jollibee restaurant while PO3
Rivera positioned himself at the side of a parked car where he can easily have a clear view of
the three. After PO1 Roy was introduced by the informant to the appellant as a buyer of
shabu, the latter immediately produced a sachet containing the said prohibited drugs and
handed the same to him. PO1 Roy raised his left hand as the pre-arranged signal that the
transaction was consummated. Thereafter, PO3 Rivera went to the area, introduced himself
as a police officer and frisked appellant from whom he recovered the marked money and a
matchbox, where the suspected shabu was placed, and two (2) aluminum foils. They
informed appellant of his constitutional rights and brought him to the police station while the two
(2) small transparent heat sealed sachets containing the suspected prohibited drugs and
paraphernalia were turned over to the crime laboratory for examination, and which [was] later,
found to be positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as shabu)
Appellant claims that he should not be convicted of the offenses charged since his guilt has not
been proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In support of his contention,
appellant alleges that the arresting officers did not even place the proper markings on the
alleged shabu and paraphernalia at the time and place of the alleged buy-bust operation
The trial court rendered a Decision finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs. On appeal, the CA affirmed the Decision
of the trial court in toto. Hence, this appeal.
Issue: Whether or not appellants conviction has been established beyond reasonable doubt
for the crime of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Held: The court find the present appeal meritorious. In actions involving the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction
or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as
evidence. On the other hand, in prosecutions for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it
must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a
prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused

was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the
evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
With respect to corpus delicti, Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 provides:
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: (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;
xxx
In the instant case, it is indisputable that the procedures for the custody and disposition of
confiscated dangerous drugs, as mandated in Section 21 of RA 9165, were not observed. The
records utterly failed to show that the buy-bust team complied with these procedures despite
their mandatory nature as indicated by the use of shall in the directives of the law.
While this Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 of RA
9165 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, for and as long as the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the siezed items are properly preserved by the apprehending
team,[73] these conditions were not met in the case at bar. No explanation was offered by the
testifying police officers for their failure to observe the rule. In this respect, we cannot fault the
apprehending policemen either, as PO1 Roy admitted that he was not a PDEA operative[74] and
the other witness, PO3 Rivera, testified that he was not aware of the procedure involved in the
conduct of anti-drug operations by the PNP.[75] In fine, there is serious doubt whether the drug
presented in court was the same drug recovered from the appellant. Consequently, the
prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the corpus delicti.
Furthermore, the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to reveal the identity of the
person who had custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending
presentation in court. Thus, the prosecution likewise failed to establish the chain of custody
which is fatal to its cause. In fine, the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven
beyond reasonable doubt. There was likewise a break in the chain of custody which proves
fatal to the prosecutions case.

People of the Philippines vs. Elmer Peralta y De Guzman alias Memeng

Gr No. 173472, February 26, 2010
Abad, J.:
Facts: DDEG staged a buy-bust operation with SPO1 Sangalang as poseur-buyer. An
informant introduced Sangalang to accused Peralta as they entered his house. The
informant told Peralta that Sangalang was a Dance Instructor (DI) in need of shabu for
himself and for fellow DIs so they could endure long nights. Sangalang gave Peralta a
marked P500.00 bill for a sachet of shabu. At a signal, Sangalang told his informant to
go out and buy cigarettes. On seeing the informant come out of the house, the police
back-up team rushed in. They arrested accused Peralta, took the marked money from
him, and brought him to the police station. The sachet of shabu was marked AS-1210702 and taken to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for testing. The
contents of the sachet tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
On defense, appellant Peralta denied having committed the offense and claimed that he
went to bed at that time and was awakened by someone whos knocking at the
door. Shortly after, four police officers forced the door open and barged into his
house. They handcuffed Peralta, searched his house, and then brought him to the
Southern Police District.
Information was filed charging Peralta with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Later, the trial court
found him guilty of the crime charged. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Hence, this review.
Issue: Whether or not the prosecution presented ample proof that the police officers
involved caught accused Peralta at his home, peddling prohibited drugs.
Held: The Court finds the evidence in this case insufficient to sustain the conviction of
accused Peralta of the crime of which he was charged. The elements of the sale of
illegal drugs are a) the identities of the buyer and seller, b) the transaction or sale of the
illegal drug, and c) the existence of the corpus delicti. With respect to the third element,
the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been
preserved. But here the prosecution failed to show the chain of custody or that they
followed the procedure that has been prescribed in connection with the seizure and
custody of drugs. To begin with, the prosecution did not adduce evidence of when the
sachet of shabu was marked. Consequently, it could have been marked long after its
seizure or even after it had been tested in the laboratory. While the records show that
the sachet bore the markings AS-1-210702, indicating that Sangalang probably made
the marking, the prosecutor did not bother to ask him if such marking was
his. Sangalang identified the seized drugs in a manner that glossed over the need to
establish their integrity.

Since the seizing officer usually has to turn over the seized drugs to the desk officer or
some superior officer, who would then send a courier to the police crime laboratory with
a request that the same be examined to identify the contents, it is imperative for the
officer who placed his marking on the plastic container to seal the same, preferably with
adhesive tape that usually cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic
container. If the drugs were not in a plastic container, the police officer should put it in
one and seal the same. In this way the drugs would assuredly reach the laboratory in
the same condition it was seized from the accused.
Further, after the laboratory technician has tested and verified the nature of the powder
in the container, he should seal it again with a new seal since the police officers seal
had been broken. In this way, if the accused wants to contest the test made, the Court
would be assured that what is retested is the same powder seized from the accused.
If the sealing of the seized article had not been made, the prosecution would have to
present the desk officer or superior officer to whom the seizing officer turned over such
article. That desk officer or superior officer needs to testify that he had taken care that
the drugs were not tampered with or substituted. And if someone else brought the
unsealed sachet of drugs to the police crime laboratory, he, too, should give similar
testimony, and so on up to the receiving custodian at the crime laboratory until the drugs
reach the laboratory technician who examined and resealed it.
Here, the police arrested Peralta and seized the sachet of shabu from him on July 21,
2002 and made the request for testing on July 22, 2002. Since the prosecution did not
present evidence that the sachet had been marked shortly after seizure and that its
integrity had been preserved by proper sealing, the prosecution failed to prove the third
element of the crime: the existence of the corpus delicti.