Legal Medicine - Dangerous Drugs Cases

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. Nos. 78813-14 November 8, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
FARHAD HATANI y ABOLHASSAN, accused-appellant.
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Nestor I. Madlansacay, counsel de parte for accused-appellant.
Nasser A. Marohomsalic, collaborating counsel for accused-appellant.
QUIASON, J.:
This is an appeal from the decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 105,
Quezon City, convicting appellant in Criminal Cases No. Q-11867 and No. Q11868.
The dispositive portion of the decision in Criminal Case No. Q-11867 reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the
accused Farhad Hatani y Abolhassan, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal practice of medicine in violation of
R.A. 2382 otherwise known as the Medical Act of 1959 (Secs.
8, 10) penalized by Section 28 thereof with "a fine of not less
than one thousand pesos nor more than ten thousand pesos
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, or by

imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five
years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion
of the court; and considering the circumstances of the case and
the ignominy caused by him to his two teen-aged, female, then
unmarried victims, this Court exercising its discretion granted
under said Section 28 of the law, hereby SENTENCES said
accused FARHAD HATANI Y ABOLHASSAN to pay a fine
of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency AND to suffer
imprisonment of five (5) years; and to pay the costs.
This Court further recommends that after service of his
sentence the accused be deported as undesirable alien (Rollo,
p. 35).
The dispositive portion of the decision in Criminal Case No. Q-11868 reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the
accused, FARHAD HATANI y ABOLHASSAN, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape punishable under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby
SENTENCES said accused to suffer life imprisonment
orreclusion perpetua; and to indemnify the complainant,
Precila Borja, in the sum of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00)
and to pay costs (Rollo, p. 41).
The information in Criminal Case No. Q-11867 charged appellant with illegal
practice of medicine, in violation of R.A. No. 2382, otherwise known as the
Medical Act of 1959, committed as follows:
That on or about the 6th day of July, 1979, in Quezon City,
Philippines the above named accused, knowing fully well that
he has not satisfactorily passed the corresponding Board
Examination, neither is he a holder of a valid Certificate of
Registration duly issued by the Board of Medical Examiners,
as in fact he does not even appear to have taken or completed
Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 1 of 46
the course leading to a medical degree, did, then and there,

willfully, unlawfully and feloniously for compensation, fee
and salary, paid to him directly, physically examined Priscila
(sic) Borja Y Loquero and Wilma Borja Y Loquero,
diagnosed, treated and administer injections on the persons of
Prescila (sic) Borja Y Loquero and Wilma Borja Y Loquero, in
Violation of Section 10, in relation to Section 28, Republic Act
No. 2382 (Records, Vol. I, p. 1).
The information in Criminal Case No. Q-11868, charged appellant with Rape,
committed as follows:
That on or about the 6th day of July, 1979, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the above-named accused, with lewd designs, and
while she was deprived of reason or unconscious after having
been drugged or administered medicine, did, then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse
with the undersigned PRECILA BORJA Y LOQUERO
without her consent and against her will, to her damage and
prejudice in such amount as may be awarded under the
provisions of the Civil Code (Records, Vol. II, p. 1).
It appears that in the morning of July 6, 1979, Agustina Borja visited
her comadre, Maura Fontreras, and requestedmalunggay leaves as medication
for her 16-year old daughter, Precila, who had high fever and loose bowel
movement. Upon learning that Precila was sick, Marita, Maura's daughter,
introduced Agustina to her husband, appellant herein, whom she said was a
medical doctor. Marita suggested that her husband treat Precila and Agustina
agreed.
Appellant and Marita went to the Borja residence, where he examined Precila.
He gave her tablets to take and administered two injections (to her), one in the
morning and the second at noon. After each injection, Precila would feel dizzy
and fall asleep.
It was appellant's diagnosis that Precila was a drug addict and required further
observation and treatment. Appellant offered to attend to Precila at his house
and again, Agustina agreed in the belief that her daughter was a drug addict.
In the evening of the same day, Precila was fetched by appellant and Marita and
was brought to appellant's house. Again, Precila was given an injection which
caused her to sleep. When she awoke, she realized that she was naked and her
entire body was in pain. Appellant was seated on the bed and was fondling her
private parts. Shocked, Precila called for her mother and tried to get up.
Appellant, however, punched her on the chest and forced her to lie down. He
pressed a pillow on her face and injected her again, causing her to fall asleep.
When Precila awoke the second time, she found appellant in bed with her. He
was naked and fondling her private parts. The pain all over her body lingered.
When Precila touched her private parts, she saw blood stains on her hand. She
tried to stand up but she was too weak. Appellant gave her another injection
rendering her unconscious.
The following morning, Agustina went to fetch Precila. Upon reaching the
Fontreras' residence, she went straight to the bedroom, where, to her great
dismay, she found Precila and appellant both asleep and naked. She hurriedly
dressed up Precila and brought her home.
When Precila woke up, she noticed she was already home and her mother was
crying. Precila remained dizzy, with throbbing pains all over her body. When
talked to, she was incoherent.
That evening, Precila's oldest sister, Josefina, a nurse by profession, came home
and saw Precila looking very weak. Her mother, who was crying narrated what
she had witnessed that morning. She also told Josefina that appellant was in the
other bedroom, treating another sister, Wilma whom he also diagnosed as a
drug addict. Josefina immediately proceeded to the bedroom and saw appellant
about to inject Wilma.
Josefina saw the open bag of appellant, which contained empty capsules of
dalmane and empty vials of valium. She inquired on the need of the injection
and appellant replied that a second shot of plain distilled water was required to
cure Wilma of her drug addiction. Josefina told appellant to stop but he
persisted. Only upon threat that she would call the police did appellant stop.
Appellant and his wife then left the Borja residence.
The following day, Agustina and Josefina brought Precila and Wilma to the
Philippine Constabulary Headquarters at Camp Crame, Quezon City, where
Josefina and Wilma gave their statements (Exhs. "D" and "F"). Precila was
physically examined by a doctor, whose medical report stated that Precila's
hymen and "deep, healing lacerations" and that "subject is in non-virgin state
physically" (Exh. A). Several needle puncture marks were also found on
Precila's arms and buttocks.
Precila and Marita chatted the whole night. Accordingly, Precila confessed that
she was not really sick. She merely related her personal problems, involving her
parents. She also admitted her vice, such as drinking, smoking and taking drugs.
A physical examination was likewise done on Wilma, which showed that she
too had a needle puncture, as shown in the Medico-Legal Report (Exh. "L").
Precila and Marita shared the same bed. Appellant; who was wearing only his
pajama pants, slept on the floor at the opposite end of the room.
Acting on the complaint filed before the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit

(CANU), a surveillance of appellant's residence was conducted. Subsequently, a
search warrant was secured from Judge Jose P. Castro of the Court of First
Instance of Quezon City. Armed with the warrant, CANU agents raided
appellant's residence on July 15, 1979.
The following morning Agustina arrived and Marita related some of Precila's
problems. Nothing untoward happened that day and Agustina headed for home
while Precila and Marita followed later.
Assorted drugs, such as dalmane, valium and mogadon, as well as prescription

pads in the name of Dr. Jesus Yap (Exhs. "H" "H-4") and other medical
instruments, such as a "thermometer, a "hygomonometer (sic), stethoscope,
syringes and needles, were seized.
The Handwriting Identification Report (Exh. "I") on the prescription slips
showed that these were written by the appellant himself. The report on the
chemistry examination of the seized tablets and capsules (Exhs. "J" "J-1")
confirmed the presence of mogadon, dalmane and valium.
After the preliminary investigation, separate informations for rape and violation
of R.A. No. 2382 were filed. Appellant pleaded not guilty to both crimes.
The defense's version is that in the evening of July 6, 1976, Agustina and
Precila Borja visited the mother-in-law of the appellant, Maura Fontreras. In the
course of the conversation, Agustina asked Marita if she could help Precila.
Marita obliged and agreed to take care of Precila for the night and allow her to
sleep in her bedroom.
Their talk lasted until the wee hours of the morning and during their
conversation, appellant would occasionally enter the room but he never joined
their discussion.
At past midnight of July 15, 1979, a raid was conducted by CANU agents in the
house of the appellant under the supervision of C1C Agustin Timbol, Jr. The
raid was made upon Josefina's complaint for illegal possession of drugs.
Appellant and his wife were driven out of their bedroom, while three-men
remained. Later, appellant was called to join them in the bedroom and he was
shocked to see assorted drugs scattered around. Appellant denied owning them.
Photographs were taken of him with the drugs. A barangay official was called
to attest to the list of the confiscated drugs. Appellant, however, refused to sign
the said list.
C1C Timbol offered to fur the case in exchange of money. Instead of acceding,
appellant demanded to see the search warrant. C1C Timbol failed to show a
warrant on the pretext that they were military men without need of any
identification or search warrant. Appellant, his wife and brother-in-law were
forced to join C1C Timbol for questioning in Camp Crame. Upon boarding the
van, appellant saw Josefina aboard kissing C1C Timbol and both exchanged
victory signs.
The trial court rendered two separate decisions and convicted the appellant of
both crimes. In finding appellant guilty of illegal purchase of medicine,
considerable weight was given to the prosecution's exhibits.
The Professional Regulation Commission certified that appellant is not among

the list of registered physicians nor among those with special permit to practice
medicine in a limited scope (Exh. "K").
Appellant failed to refute the Handwriting Identification Report (Exh. "I")
released by the PC Crime Laboratory showing that the signature of Dr. Jesus D.
Yap (Exhs. "H" "H-4") prescribing medicine belonged to him. The pictures
also taken during the raid (Exhs. "G" - "G-8'" undeniably reveal several medical
equipment used by practicing physicians.
Notwithstanding the trial court's finding that there was no direct evidence of
rape, it concluded that circumstantial evidence indicate that rape was
consummated by appellant considering the following:
1. The medico-legal examination of victim Precila, taken on
July 8, 1979 at 10:25 in the morning or less than 48 hours from
the evening of July 6, 1979 found "hymen with deep, healing
lacerations at 4, 6 and 9 o'clock position"; thus indicating that
the lacerations were recent as they are in the process of
healing; (Exh. "A-1")
2. The above undeniable findings of the expert confirms the
statement of the victim, a young girl of 16 or 17 years of age,
that when she held private parts which were painful then, she
noticed blood. (tsn. Alma, Feb. 9, 1984, pp. 4-5).
The fresh laceration of the hymen further confirms the carnal assault. (People
vs. Ocampo, L-47335, Aug. 13, 1986)
5. When the mother, Agustina, came into the room of the

accused that early morning of July 7, 1979 she saw her
daughter and the accused on the same bed and both naked.
(tsn., Rogato, Jan. 27, 1981, p. 9)
6. The medico-legal found several needle puncture marks on
the arms and buttocks of Precila (Exh. "A"); thus confirming
Precila's testimony that she had been injected by the accused,
rendering her unconscious (tsn. Alma, Feb. 9, 1984, pp. 4-5;
tsn., Nenita, May 21, 1984, pp. 3-6; also pp. 29-30).
7. The medico-legal found the victim "in non-virgin state
physically." (Exh; "A-i")
8. At the time of the medico-legal examination, i.e. morning of
July 8, 1979, the victim was found to be "incoherent." (Exh. A)
after effect of the injections or drugs.
9. At the time of the incident (July 6, 1979) the Borjas and
Frontreras (sic) were "comadres" and neighbors. There is no
enmity between and among them.
10. Between accused and Marita on one hand, and the victim,
her mother, and sisters, on the other hand, there was no
misunderstanding before the incident. There is absolutely
absence of any ulterior motive for the teen-aged victim or her
family to file the serious charge of rape which would expose
her to embarrassment of examination of her private parts and
public trial (Rollo, pp. 38-39).
3. In the two short waking moments of the victim she noticed

she was naked and beside her on the same bed was the
accused, also naked. (tsn. Alma, Feb. 9, 1984, pp. 3-5)
In his first assignment of error, appellant questions the credibility of the

prosecution witnesses.
4. The accused, then 21 years of age was in the prime of youth,

and the unconscious girl beside him was just 16 or 17 years of
age, thus in the full bloom of womanhood. The sexual
excitement on the part of the accused was therefore
exceedingly great.
Appellant faults complainant for recounting her ordeal only after four years
when she took the witness stand. This argument is misleading. The record
shows that the day after the rape, Josefina and Wilma Borja, accompanied by
their mother, Agustina, issued their statements at Camp Crame. Agustina gave
her statement twice on separate days. Precila did not give any statement due to
her weak condition but it cannot be denied that she was instead physically
examined. Suffice it to say, the Medico Legal Report (Exh. "A") indicates
swellings and lacerations and concludes that Precila was no longer a virgin.
Although the records fail to show any sworn statement by Precila, such is not
fatal where the sworn affidavits of her mother, her two sisters and the medicolegal report are sufficient to show probable cause of rape (People v. Yambao,
193 SGRA 571 [1991]).
Precila was either dizzy or unconscious at the time she was sexually abused. We
find her testimony consistent and credible. While her testimony is limited to the
times when she would gain her consciousness, it is not unlikely that such
traumatic incidents would still be engraved on her mind even four years after.
Appellant's assertion that Precila failed to inform her family of his misdeeds is
explainable. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, Precila was still
dizzy and incoherent as a consequence of the injections administered by
appellant. In fact, when Precila was physically examined by the doctor the day
after, she was still sleepy and groggy (TSN, March 31, 1980, pp. 7-8).
Appellant also finds it strange that considering the acts allegedly committed by
him against Precila, the medico-legal report fails to specify any injuries on the
body of Precila. Appellant need not inflict heavy blows on Precila for the
simple reason that she was under sedation. The absence of the injuries does not
negate the commission of rape (People v. Torrevillas, 203 SCRA 576 [1991];
People v. Arenas, 198 172 [1991]) for rape may be committed after rendering a
woman unconscious (Art. 335, Revised Penal Code; People v. Gerones, 193
SCRA 263 [1991]).
Appellant alleges that Precila was no longer a virgin on that fateful day and that
her bleeding was actually the start of her menstrual cycle. It is settled
jurisprudence that virginity is not an essential element of rape (People v. Corro,
197 SCRA 121 [1991]; People v. Banayo, 195 SCRA 543 [1991]). To claim
that Precila's menstrual cycle began on that day is highly speculative.
Appellant claims that the sworn statements of the Borjas (Exhs. "D", "E" and
"F") were antedated and were prepared after the illegal search was conducted in
his residence. He also cites some inconsistencies in said statements. We find the
claim to be devoid of merit. It is only now on appeal that appellant disputes the
execution of these affidavits. When they were presented and offered as

evidence, appellant failed to raise such objections and to refute them.
The alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses
merely refer to minor details, which cannot destroy their credibility (People v.
Doctolero, 193 SCRA 632 [1991]). This is also true where statements made
while on the witness stand are claimed to be inconsistent with the affidavit,
which are generally incomplete (People v. Lagota, 194 SCRA 92 [1991]; People
v. Avanzado, 158 SCRA 427 [1988]).
With regard to the second assignment of error, appellant insists that his
conviction arose from insufficient evidence and his failure to prove his
innocence.
Indeed, the circumstantial evidence established at the trial are more than
sufficient to prove the guilt of appellant. The Medico-Legal Report on Precila,
taken within 48 hours from the commission of rape confirmed that her hymen
had "deep, healing lacerations at 4, 6 and 9 o'clock position" and Precila was "in
non-virgin state physically" (Exh. "A"). Furthermore, the report confirms that
Precila had at least six needle puncture marks and swellings, which confirm that
appellant had injected her several times.
On the two occasions that Precila woke up, she positively stated that appellant
was with her on the bed and that they were both naked. She also tried to free
herself on both attempts from accused, but, he made her unconscious through
injections (TSN, February 9, 1984, pp. 3-5). This is corroborated by the
testimony of Agustina, who saw her daughter and accused together naked on
bed (TSN, January 27, 1981, p. 9). These unbroken chain of events leads one to
a fair and reasonable conclusion that accused actually raped Precila.
As held in People v. Yambao, supra, credence is given to the findings of the
trial court where the rape victim's testimony is buttressed by the corroborative
testimony of the mother and the medico-legal report, as well as the report of the
police investigator.
It must also be borne in mind that at the time of the commission of the crime,
Precila was just sixteen years old. No young lady at the prime of her youth
would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her intimate parts
and later bare herself to the disgrace brought to her honor in a public trial unless
she was motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and
brought to justice (People v. Patilan, 197 SCRA 354 [1991]; People v. Yambao,
193 SCRA 571 [1991]).
Appellant claims that his right to be presumed innocent was violated. He cites
the trial court's decision holding that it.
. . . finds that with these circumstantial evidences (sic) pieced
together the prosecution has proved the crime of rape, and the
burden shifted on the defense to show the contrary (Rollo, p.
40).
Appellant was afforded a fair trial and in fact he availed of surrebuttal evidence.
The statement of the trial court, as correctly argued by the Solicitor General,
implies that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support appellant's
conviction unless the defense is able to provide evidence to the contrary.
With respect to his conviction of illegal practice of medicine, appellant
presented inconsistent claims. On one hand, he claims that the drugs and other
paraphernalia were planted by the raiding team; while on the other hand, he
claims that these were seized without any warrant.
If indeed the evidence were all planted, how can appellant explain his
handwriting on the prescription pads in the name of Dr. Jesus Yap? A perusal of
the photographs showing accused during the raid, fails to indicate any
protestation by him. In fact, the other photographs (Exhs. "G-l", "G-2", "G-4"
"G-8") do not bear any sign of disorder, in contrast to appellant's testimony
that his room was made into a mess during the raid.
The records fail to disclose a copy of a search warrant. However, the
prosecution was able to present its return (Exh. "ZZ") and we are satisfied that
indeed a lawful search warrant was obtained. Besides, the judge who granted
the search warrant was the same judge who initially heard both criminal cases.
It can therefore be presumed, that the search was made with a search warrant
and absent of any showing that it was procured maliciously, the items seized are
admissible in evidence (People v. Umali, 193 SCRA 493 [1991]).
The evidence is overwhelming that appellant actually treated and diagnosed

Precila and Wilma Borja. The positive testimony of Agustina, Precila, Wilma
and Josefina Borja; the medico-legal reports (Exhs. "A", "A-7", "C", "L" and
"L-1") which attest to the needle marks; the Handwriting Identification Report
(Exh. I); the photographs (Exhs. "G-l "G-8") showing assorted drugs and
medical equipment in appellant's room; and the chemistry reports (Exhs. "J"
"J-1") prove that appellant was engaged in the practice of medicine. And as to
his allegation that there was no proof of payment, the law specifically punishes
said act whether or not done for a fee.
Appellant claims that Precila admitted in her cross-examination that she was in
school the whole day of July 6, 1979 and it was therefore impossible for him to
have treated and diagnosed her on that date. An accurate reading of the
transcript, however, will show that Precila's testimony was in response to a
question regarding her school schedule for that day.
Finally, appellant claims that the ponente of both decisions was not the trial
judge, ergo said judge was thus deprived of the opportunity to assess the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Admittedly, the ponente's participation was limited to the resolution of the
cases. The fact that the judge who heard the evidence is not the one who
rendered the judgment, and for that reason the latter did not have the
opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial but merely
relied on the records of the case, does not render the judgment erroneous
(People v. Ramos, Jr., 203 SCRA 237 [1991]; People v. Villamayor, 199 SCRA
472 [1991]), especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to support its
conclusion.
WHEREFORE, the judgments appealed from are AFFIRMED in toto. Costs de
oficio.
SO ORDERED.
Cruz, Davide, Jr. and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
for an entrapment operation and put together a team, with SPO4 Sison, as team
leader; Police Officer 3 Ricky Calamiong (PO3 Calamiong) and PO3 Roy
Mateo (PO3 Mateo), as back-up officers; and Police Officer 2 Edgar
Antolin (PO2 Antolin), as the poseur buyer.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 186387
August 31, 2011
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JUAN MENDOZA y VICENTE, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal assailing the June 5, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. HC-No. 02734 which affirmed with modification the February
6, 2007 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City, Branch 61(RTC).
The RTC found accused Juan Mendoza y Vicente guilty of having violated
Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Version of the Prosecution
The evidence for the prosecution shows that Senior Police Officer 4 Edelfonso
Sison (SPO4 Sison) received information from a long-serving unidentified
informant of the Baguio City Police Offices (BCPO) Drug Enforcement
Section (DES) that the accused contacted him and offered to
sell shabu worth P1,000.00 to any interested buyer. The accused then suggested
that they meet at the stairs of the Cresencia Barangay Hall along Bokawkan
Road.
After interviewing the informant, Police Senior Inspector Myles Pascual (PSI
Pascual) decided to conduct a buy-bust operation to entrap the accused. PSI
Pascual made arrangements for the informant, the accused, and the poseur buyer
officer to meet on April 14, 2005 around 2:30 oclock in the afternoon at the
stairs below the Cresencia Barangay Hall along Bokawkan Road. He planned
In coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the

entrapment team proceeded to the area at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon, half an
hour before the scheduled time. The team parked their vehicle 20 to 30 meters
away from the designated transaction area. PO2 Antolin and the informant
alighted and proceeded to the stairway to wait for the accused.
Twenty minutes later, the accused arrived and approached the informant. The
latter introduced PO2 Antolin as the buyer. After the accused asked if the buyer
had the money, PO2 Antolin handed over P1,000.00. The accused then gave
him two (2) sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Antolin raised
his right hand, the pre-arranged signal, signifying to the other team members
that the transaction had been consummated. The team rushed to assist PO2
Antolin, who arrested the accused and recovered the buy-bust-money. PO2
Antolin frisked the accused and recovered five (5) more small transparent
sachets with white crystalline substance from the pants pocket of the accused.
He turned over the same to the team leader, SPO4 Sison.
SPO4 Sison informed the accused in Tagalog the reason why he was being
arrested and apprised him of his constitutional rights. The accused merely
nodded but otherwise kept silent.3 The buy-bust team then took the accused to
the BCPO, where PO2 Antolin identified him as Juan Mendoza, alias "Ampi."
In a preliminary test, the white crystalline substance recovered from the accused
tested positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a
dangerous drug.4 The case records state that after the conduct of such
preliminary test, the items confiscated from the accused were turned over to the
Philippine National Police(PNP) Crime Laboratory Service at Camp Bado
Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet for further analysis and disposition.5
A confirmatory test conducted on the same day by Police Inspector and
Forensic Chemical Officer Cecile Akiangan Bullong yielded the same result.6
Version of the Accused
The accused alleges that in the afternoon of April 14, 2005, he was walking
down Sepic Road, Baguio City, on his way home from his brothers house in
Guisad, where he had just finished washing diapers and clothes. A vehicle
stopped beside him and SPO4 Sison alighted. The accused knew SPO4 Sison
because the latter arrested him for a drug offense way back in 1997, for which
he was convicted and incarcerated in Camp Sampaguita for five years.
any reasonable doubt and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate

sentence of Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day to Fourteen (14) Years, and to
pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.9
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
SPO4 Sison showed him a photograph and demanded information about the
person in the photo. When he insisted that he did not know who it was, SPO4
Sison invited him to the BCPO-DES. As he could not decline, he went along
with him.
At the DES, the police again asked him if he knew the person in the photo and a
certain Gary Chua, but he replied in the negative. He was also questioned
whether he knew someone who was selling drugs, and he again replied in the
negative. He told the police that since his release from prison, he no longer
dabbled in the drug trade, as he already had a family. When he told SPO4 Sison
that he did not know anyone who was selling drugs, SPO4 Sison got angry.
After an hour, he was informed that he would be subjected to a drug test. Again,
unable to refuse, he was subjected to a drug test at the BCPO Station 7
laboratory, in front of the DES. He was then brought to the Baguio General
Hospital (BGH) for a medical examination, and later back to the police station.
During the interrogation at the police office, he did not have a counsel
present.7 SPO4 Sison did not inform him that he was being arrested for the
possession of the 5 heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu.8
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its Decision dated February 6, 2007, the RTC found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt in both Criminal Case No. 24384-R and Criminal
Case No. 24385-R. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 24384-R, judgment is rendered finding
the accused GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt and he is hereby sentenced
to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500,000.00 and in Criminal
Case No. 24385-R, judgment is rendered finding the accused GUILTY beyond
In its Decision10 dated June 5, 2008, the CA affirmed with modification the
RTC decision. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit.
The Decision dated 06 February 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
City, Branch 61 finding the accused-appellant JUAN MENDOZA Y VICENTE
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 24384-R and 24385-R and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
500,00[0].00, and the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to fourteen (14) years, respectively, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that said accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay a
fine of 300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 24385-R.
SO ORDERED.11
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
In his Supplemental Brief for the Accused-Appellant,12 the accused submits that
the court a quo erred:
In not finding that the procedures for the custody and disposition of
confiscated dangerous drugs in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not
complied with, rendering the evidence compromised.
In convicting the accused-appellant notwithstanding the fact that his guilt
was not established beyond reasonable doubt.13
Ruling of the Court
The Court finds the arguments of the accused bereft of merit.

In crimes involving the sale of illegal drugs, two essential elements must be
satisfied: (1) identities of the buyer, the seller, the object, and the consideration;
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.14
In the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand,
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.15 In this case, all these elements were satisfactorily proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt through testimonial, documentary and
object evidence presented during the trial. PO2 Antolin, the designated poseurbuyer, testified as to the circumstances surrounding the apprehension of the
accused, and the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs recovered from the
accused. 16 Then, SPO4 Sison corroborated PO2 Antolins testimony and
confirmed that all the confiscated items recovered from the accused were turned
over to him as team leader.17
The accused also argues that the procedure in the custody and disposition of the
dangerous drugs was not observed. The Court finds, however, that the
compliance with the chain of custody rule was sufficiently established in this
case.
In the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, the following links must be
established: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of
the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.18
Regarding the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination, the parties admitted the following
facts during pre-trial:
1. The fact that the forensic chemist examined the drugs and
prepared the report thereon but qualified that it did not come from
the accused;
2. Medico-legal Report;
3. The witnesses to the inventory witnessed the inventory taking,
signed the inventory but they have no knowledge that the drugs came
from the accused.
4. Order of detention, booking sheet and preliminary test;
5. Existence of the pre-operation report and the request for drug
test.19 [Emphases supplied]
The prosecution also presented several documents that traced how the evidence
changed hands.
The Inventory in the Presence of Witnesses20 (Exhibit "D") listed six small
transparent heat-sealed plastic sachets, each weighing approximately 0.3g and
containing white crystalline substance suspected to be Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu, previously marked as "ECA" 04/14/0521 , and showed
the corresponding photos taken during the inventory (Exhibit "N").22
The Certificate of Preliminary Test23 (Exhibit "F") prepared under the signature
of Marites Vizcara Tamio of the BCPO DES and addressed to the Baguio City
Prosecutor, certified that on April 14, 2005, at 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, she
conducted a preliminary test on the same marked items24 by using Simons
reagent on the white crystalline substance contained in the individually heatsealed plastic sachets. All the items yielded a "dark blue color," indicating the
presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The same
certificate stated that the alleged confiscated pieces of evidence were turned
over the to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service at Camp Bado Dangwa, La
Trinidad, Benguet for chemistry analysis and disposition.
Finally, Chemistry Report No. D-044-200525 (Exhibit "G")26 issued by the PNP
Regional Crime Laboratory Office at Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad,
Benguet stated that following a qualitative examination conducted on the same
marked items,27 it was found that the specimens produced a positive result for
the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The illegal drugs subject of the buy-bust transaction and those recovered from
the person of the accused were positively identified by PO2 Antolin, marked
and presented as evidence during trial:
xxx
Q I am presenting to you five sachets which your office marked as Exhibit
CDEF and G with the marking ECA, 04/14/05 signature and a letter R. Are
these the same items which you referred a while back?
A Yes, sir.
Q x x x I am showing you two sachets marked as Exhibit "A" ECA. 04/14/05

BB and a signature. Now tell us the relation of these sachets which the accused
gave to you in exchange of the 1,000.00?
Q And for the record, what does ECA stands (sic) for?
WITNESS:
WITNESS:
A Edgar Cortes Antolin, sir.
A These are the buy bust item, sir.
PROS. CATRAL:
PROS. CATRAL:
Q And what does 04/14/05 means (sic)?
Q Now what does ECA stands (sic) for again?
A The date, sir.
A Edgar Cortes Antolin, sir.
Q The date of what?
Q And that will be you
A The date of the transaction, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q And what does "R" in the five sachets represents (sic)?
Q And 04/14/05 would be the date of the transaction?
A Recovered, sir.
A Yes, sir.
PROS. CATRAL:
Q And BB. What would those letters mean?
Q How about this signature, whose signature would that be?
For purposes of identification, may we have the two sachets marked as BB be

marked as Exhibit M-1 and M-2 which are the subject for sale and the other five
other sachets with marking R be marked as M-3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to constitute the
charge for possession.
A My signature, sir.
COURT:
A buy bust, sir.
Mark it. 28
From the foregoing circumstances, it is unmistakable that there is no break in
the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs from the time that it came to
the possession of PO2 Antolin to the point when such items were presented and
identified during trial. Clearly, there is no doubt that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug were properly preserved, in
compliance with what the law requires.
WHEREFORE, the June 5, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
HC-No. 02734 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
The accusatory portions of the separate Informations both dated 10 April 2006
filed and raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati read:
[Criminal Case No. 06-750
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 194721
August 15, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
JOHN BRIAN AMARILLO y MAPA a.k.a. JAO MAPA, AccusedAppellant.
That on or about the 8th day of April 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [JOHN BRIAN
AMARILLO y MAPA alias "Jao Mapa/Jao"], without the corresponding license
or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,
give away, distribute and deliver zero point zero three (0.03) gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
VILLARAMA, JR.*
[Criminal Case No. 06-751
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Once again, on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, we uphold the state's
compliance with the chain of custody rule and sustain the conviction1 of
accused-appellant of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu.
That on or about the 8th day of April 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [JOHN BRIAN
AMARILLO y MAPA alias "Jao Mapa/Jao"], not being lawfully authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession direct custody and control the following items with markings, to wit:
"JAO 1" - 0.03 gram
The Facts
"JAO 2" - 0.02 gram
Accused-appellant identified himself as "John Brian Amarillo, 25 years old, a
resident of Laperal Compound, Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City, single, a
washing boy."2 The records do not indicate when, how and upon whose liking
the a.k.a. "Jao Mapa" came to be associated with the accused.
"Jao Mapa," the "washing boy" who was acquitted for violation of Sections 5
and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in Criminal Case Nos. 03-204445,3 in 2004, and whose name appeared in the drugs Watchlist
of Barangay Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City,4 was again charged with illegal sale
and illegal possession of shabu this time allegedly committed in 2006.
"JAO 3" - 0.02 gram

"JAO 4" - 0.02 gram
"JAO 5" - 0.02 gram
"JAO 6" - 0.02 gram
"JAO 7" - 0.02 gram
"JAO 8" - 0.01 gram
"JAO 9" - 0.02 gram

"JAO 10" - 0.03 gram
"JAO 11" - 0.02 gram
"JAO 12" - 0.02 gram
"JAO 13" - 0.03 gram
"JAO 14" - 0.02 gram
with a total weight of zero point three three (0.33) gram of Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the abovecited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
On 8 May 2006, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. During pretrial, the
forensic chemist and PO2 Rafael Castillo, the police investigator assigned to the
case, appeared in court. The parties stipulated on the following: "qualification of
the forensic chemist as an expert witness; existence of the documents relative to
the examination conducted by the forensic chemist; substance, subject matter of
[the] case; existence of the Final Investigation [R]eport; and Acknowledgement
Receipt,"7 after which, the court ordered that the testimony of the forensic
chemist and the police investigator be dispensed with.8
On trial, the prosecution presented the following witnesses: PO1 Percival
Mendoza9 (PO1 Mendoza) and PO3 Julius Lique10 (PO3 Lique), both of the
Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force of the Makati Central
Police Station; and Barangay Captain Angelito Gatchalian11 (Barangay Captain
Gatchalian) of BarangayGuadalupe Viejo. The defense, on the other hand,
presented the accused as its lone witness.12
The Court of Appeals summarized the version of the prosecution in the
following manner:
On April 8, 2006, PO1 Mendoza x x x received a telephone call from an

informant that a certain Jao Mapa (later identified as the Accused- Appellant)
was selling prohibited narcotics at Laperal Compound, Guadalupe Viejo,
Makati City. Immediately, a briefing for a buy-bust operation was conducted.
The buy-bust team prepared Three Hundred Pesos (PhP 300.00) worth of
marked money and designated PO1 Mendoza as the poseur-buyer. The other
members of the team were PO2 Lique, PO1 Randy Santos, and PO1 Voltaire
Esquerra. The team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
before proceeding to the target area.
At around 9:15 oclock in the evening of the same day, the team proceeded to
the basketball court inside Laperal Compound where the Accused-Appellant
was sighted. Once inside, PO1 Mendoza and the informant, with the help of
sufficient lights coming from the nearby shanties and sari-sari stores, saw a man
wearing a camouflage short pants and a dark t-shirt casually standing beside one
of the basketball courts post while talking to two (2) men. The informant called
the attention of the Accused-Appellant and introduced PO1 Mendoza to the
latter as a buyer intending to purchase Three Hundred Pesos (PhP 300.00) worth
of shabu. PO1 Mendoza then handed the marked money to the AccusedAppellant who, in turn, took from his right pocket a small plastic sachet
allegedly containing shabu and gave it to the former. Upon receipt, PO1
Mendoza examined the contents thereof and asked the Accused-Appellant,
"Panalo to ha?" The Accused-Appellant replied with "Ako pa! Amin ang
pinakamagandang bato dito."
When PO1 Mendoza was certain that the plastic sachet contained shabu, he lit a
cigarette, a pre-arranged signal, and motioned to his team members to arrest the
Accused-Appellant. PO1 Mendoza subsequently introduced himself as a police
officer and arrested the latter. A few seconds later, his other team members
arrived. A procedural body search was conducted resulting in the discovery of a
small Mercury Drug plastic bag containing seventeen (17) small heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachets with suspected shabu, the marked money, and
several Peso bills of different denominations. The confiscated items were
immediately marked, photographed, and inventoried at the place of arrest and in
the presence of Brgy. Capt. Gatchalian. The photographs of the seized items
were taken by PO3 Lique. Thereafter, the Accused-Appellant was brought to
the Makati Police Station for further investigation. Subsequently, the seized
plastic sachets were brought to the Crime Laboratory to determine the presence
xxxx
of shabu. The results thereof showed that the substances therein were positive
for Methylamphetamine,Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.13
The version of the defense, on the other hand, consisted of the sole testimony of
the accused, to wit:
The Accused-Appellant testified that, on April 8, 2006, at around 3:00 oclock
in the afternoon, he was watching a game at the basketball court in Laperal
Compound, Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City, when several men arrived and asked
him if he knew the whereabouts of a certain Alvin. When he could not give any
information, they brought him to the Makati Police Station. It was only after he
was detained that he learned that charges were being filed against him for the
sale and possession of dangerous drugs.14
After trial, the court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
both crimes.15 The dispositive portion of the Decision dated 28 July 2008 reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 06-750, finding the accused JOHN BRIAN
AMARILLO y MAPA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for
violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos
(P 500,000.00);
2. In Criminal Case No. 06-751, finding the same accused JOHN BRIAN
AMARILLO y MAPA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for
violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) days as minimum
to twenty (20) years as maximum and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand
pesos (P 300,000.00).16
On appeal, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED17 the decision of the trial court.
Hence, this automatic review of the accused conviction.
Our Ruling
We sustain the conviction of appellant.

To prove illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: "(a) the
identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the
thing.18And, to secure conviction, it is material to establish that the transaction
or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as
evidence.19
In the instant case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that
accused-appellant, not being authorized by law, sold a sachet of shabu to PO1
Mendoza in a buy-bust operation. PO1 Mendoza testified that, during the buybust operation, the informant introduced him to accusedappellant; that
informant asked accused-appellant if he could help PO1 Mendoza buy shabu;
that accused-appellant agreed to sell him Three Hundred Peso-worth ofshabu;
that PO1 Mendoza, counted the pre-marked bills in front of accused-appellant
and gave them to him; and that accused-appellant, in turn, handed him a small
transparent plastic sachet, which he took from the pocket of his short pants, and
which tested for shabu based on the result of the laboratory examination. PO1
Lique corroborated the testimony of PO1 Mendoza by stating that he saw
accused-appellant hand something to the poseur-buyer. Further, the seized
items, together with the result of the laboratory examination and the marked
money were all presented in court.
As to the crime of illegal possession of shabu, the prosecution clearly proved
the presence of the following essential elements of the crime: "(a) the accused
[was] in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or
dangerous drug; (b) such possession [was] not authorized by law; and (c) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug."20 After the arrest of the
accused-appellant, seventeen (17) heat-sealed sachets of white substance were
found in his possession. The chemistry report showed that the white substance
in the plastic sachets tested for shabu. And, there was no showing that such
possession was authorized by law.
We find no merit in the arguments of the defense that the arresting officers did
not testify that the marking of the seized items were done in the presence of the
persons mentioned by the law and its implementing rules; and that testimonies
on how the confiscated items were turned over to the investigator for
examination were lacking.
The Joint Affidavit of Arrest21 executed by PO1 Mendoza and PO1 Randy C.
Santos, the allegations of which PO1 Mendoza affirmed and confirmed during
his direct testimony, is clear on two points: (1) that the seized items were
marked and inventoried at the place where accused-appellant was arrested; and
(2) that the integrity of the seized items was preserved. Thus:
The testimony, in turn, is well-supported by a copy of the Request for

Laboratory Examination (Exhibit "A") showing that it was PO1 Mendoza
himself who brought the request to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Stamped on the
face of the receiving copy of the request were the following:
PNP CRIME LABORATORY
4. That immediately thereafter, together with the confiscated pieces of evidence

marked and inventoried at the place of suspects apprehension, the confiscated
pieces of evidence, together with suspect AMARILLO, were immediately
brought at SAID SOTF office, for formal dispositions and proper investigations.
SOUTHERN POLICE DISTRICT OFFICE

F. ZOBEL, MAKATI CITY
5. That, before the SAID SOTF office, the investigator on case acknowledge the
complaint, and in preparation for the formal filing of formal charges against
herein suspects, same was subjected to the procedural Drug Test at SOCO/SPD
and mandatory MEDICO LEGAL examinations at OSMAK Malugay as
assisted by the same arresting officers, xxx. The confiscated pieces of evidence,
only in so far with the suspected illegal drugs and the small white plastic
Mercury Drug were referred at SOCO SPD for laboratory examinations and
safe keeping.22
CONTROL NO. 1204-06
The Joint Affidavit of Arrest is consistent with the following testimony of PO1
Mendoza on direct examination:
CASE NO. D-284-0624 (Emphasis supplied)
Q: Mr. Witness, after the inventory what did you do next, if theres
any?
A: We proceeded to our office, SAID SOFT office, sir.
Q: And what did you do when you reached your office?
A: We made the necessary documents for filing the case, sir.
Q: What did you do with the items you recovered from the accused?
A: We turned it over to the investigator together with the subject
person to SOCO crime laboratory for drug test examination and
for laboratory examination, sir.23 (Emphasis supplied.)
T/D RECEIVED: 11:55 PM 8 APRIL 06

RECEIVED BY: NVP DE RANIA
DELIVERED BY: PO1 PERCIVAL MENDOZA
As to the required "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," Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 specifically provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. x x x:
1) 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,
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 the 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;
speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such

findings."28
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Q: May we know xxx if you knew all along before the buy bust operation where
to be conducted by the said anti-narcotics team?
Also, after a thorough examination of the records, we find the testimonies of the
witnesses for the prosecution credible. For instance, after the cross examination
of Barangay Captain Gatchalian, the presiding judge asked him a number of
clarificatory questions, which he readily answered in a straightforward manner.
Thus:
This has been substantially complied with after the prosecution was able to
show that the accused, the arresting officers and a public official were all
present during the inventory of the seized items as evidenced by the testimonies
of the witnesses, the photographs, and the Acknowledgement Receipt of the
items seized.
A: Yes, sir, because I am the Cluster head, every time we have an operation
beforehand they tell me the operation.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that all of these were defective for one
reason or another, the defense failed to consider the following well-settled
principle:
A: Yes, [Y]our Honor.
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the
required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated
pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render
accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. xxx25
The Court has long settled that an accused may still be found guilty, despite the
failure to faithfully observe the requirements provided under Sec. 21 of RA
9165, for as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken.26
As to the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, we hold, as we have
done time and again, that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility
of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and
credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect"27 and that "findings of
the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are
accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or
Q: So you knew all along that you will be called to act as the witness when the
inventory would be prepared?
Q: When you reached the place where the incident happened, was the inventory
sheet already accomplished wherein the items allegedly seized from the accused
were listed?
A: Not yet, when I arrived, thats the time they prepared the inventory sheet,
so, when I arrived, then they started to write the items.29 (Emphasis
supplied)
PO3 Lique corroborated material facts in the testimony of PO1 Mendoza, to the
effect that the sale of shabubetween accused-appellant and PO1 Mendoza was
consummated, and that Barangay Captain Gatchalian was present during the
inventory of the seized items.
The doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is
likewise applicable in the instant case there being no showing of any ill motive
on the part of the arresting officers to falsely accuse accused-appellant of the
crimes charged. In fact, he himself testified that "he did not know any of the
persons who arrested him and that he did not also have any misunderstanding
with any one of them."30 The Court elucidated:
SO ORDERED.
xxx. And in the absence of proof of any intent on the part of the police
authorities to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant, as in this
case, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, . . ., must
prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of appellant that she had
been framed.31
Finally, we find the penalties imposed by the trial court in order.
Under Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, a person found guilty of unauthorized
sale of shabu shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 500,000.00) to Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00).32
On the other hand, under Section 11, Article II of the same Act, the crime of
illegal possession of shabu weighing less than five (5) grams is punishable by
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a
fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).33
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the determination of the
appropriate penalty,34 the trial court correctly imposed the following penalties:
(1) in Criminal Case No. 06-750 for the crime of illegal sale of shabu, life
imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500.000.00)
considering that these arc within the period and range of the fine prescribed by
law35 and (2) in Criminal Case No. 06-751 for the crime of illegal possession of
0.33 gram of shabu, imprisonment for an indeterminate term of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, and a
fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00), which is within the
range of the amount imposable therefor. 36
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 31 May 2010 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03579 isAFFIRMED, and, thereby the 28 July 20C'8
Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case Nos. 06-750-751 is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
Contrary to law.
When arraigned on June 9, 1992, the appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial
thereafter ensued.
SECOND DIVISION
The Case for the Prosecution
G.R. No. 132135
May 21, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
DOMINGO SABARDAN, appellant.
DECISION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
Before us is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Regional Trial Court of
Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 69, in Criminal Case No. 1590-B convicting
appellant Domingo Sabardan of serious illegal detention with rape, sentencing
him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering the appellant to
indemnify the private complainant, Richelle Banluta, the sum of P50,000.00.
The Information2 against the appellant reads:
That about and during the period beginning the 15th day of September
1991, to the 30th day of September 1991, in the Municipality of
Binangonan, Rizal, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and by force and intimidation, detain
and keep lock one Richelle Banluta, a girl twelve (12) years of age in
his rented apartment at No. 5 Linaluz St., SCH-Subdivision-Tayuman,
Binangonan, Rizal, from September 15 to September 30, 1991, or a
period of fifteen (15) days, under restraint and against the will of said
Richelle Banluta, and said accused during said period of detention did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have a carnal
knowledge of the complainant Richelle Banluta while she is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious by reason of a drug which he
administered to her, against her will and consent.
Richelle Banluta was born on August 10, 1979. When she was about four (4)
years old, Nimfa Banluta, a beach resort owner, allowed Richelle to stay in their
house and considered her as a natural daughter. Nimfa had Richelle enrolled in
the elementary school using her surname, "Banluta."
Sometime in 1990, the Banluta family transferred their residence to No. 5,
Linaluz Street, San Carlos Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal. Opposite
their house was that of Elizabeth de Luna. Another neighbor of the Banluta
family was the appellant, then fifty-year-old Domingo Sabardan, a cathecist
who resided in a two-storey apartment about fifteen meters away from the
Banluta residence. The appellant came to meet Richelle as he frequented the
Banluta house and befriended Rico Banluta, Nimfas twenty- one-year-old son.
At about 10:00 p.m. on September 15, 1991, Nimfa berated Richelle for playing
with the diaper of her niece. Richelle, who was then a little more than twelve
years old, placed some underwear, shorts, long pants, and four shirts in her
school bag and surreptitiously left the house. She passed by the appellants
apartment while the latter was on his way out to throw garbage. The appellant
inquired where she was going, and Richelle replied that she was earlier berated
by her mother and was leaving the house. The appellant invited Richelle to his
apartment, and to spend the night therein. Richelle agreed. She felt happy,
thinking that she was in good hands.3 Besides, she had nowhere to go.4
The appellant led Richelle to a room on the second floor of the apartment,
where she slept without removing her pants and underwear. The following
morning, the appellant served breakfast to Richelle in her room. He told
Richelle that Ella, who stayed in the house, had left earlier at 5:00 a.m. The
room where Richelle slept had three padlocked windows with jalousies.5
Later that day, the appellant served lunch and dinner to Richelle in her room.
That night, the appellant entered the room completely naked. Surprised,
Richelle asked what he was doing in the room, but the appellant did not
respond. Richelle kicked him and pulled his hair, and told him to get out. The
appellant left the room.
someone hysterically shouting, "Mang Domeng!"12 Elizabeth sensed that the

voice was that of Richelles. She looked out of the window of her house and
saw the appellant in the upper floor of his apartment, walking to and fro.13
The next morning, Richelle told the appellant that she wanted to go home
already. The appellant dissuaded her from leaving and told Richelle that her
mother might get angry if she found out that she had slept in his apartment.
Elizabeth waited for daybreak, and at 6:00 a.m. reported the incident to Val
Banluta, Richelles brother. Elizabeth and Val went to the appellants house and
knocked on the door. No one responded. The two left and kept the incident to
themselves.14 At about 11:00 a.m., Elizabeth sensed that someone in the
appellants house was watching television. She related the incident to Richelles
other brother, Rico Banluta, who climbed the wall of the appellants house
which abutted a vacant lot, and through the window saw Richelle inside the
apartment. Rico informed Val of his discovery. They proceeded to the police
station where they reported the incident. Three policemen arrived, and along
with Rico and Val, they proceeded to the appellants apartment. They saw that it
was locked from the outside with three padlocks. Instead of destroying the
padlocks, the policemen asked Rico and the latters friends to climb over the
wall. Toto and Binoy, who were friends of Rico, climbed the wall, and managed
to extricate Richelle from the second floor of the apartment through the
window, after removing the jalousies.15 The appellant was not in the house at
that time.
The appellant later left the house. When Richelle tried to open the door, she
found out that it was locked from the outside.6
In the evening of the fourth day of her detention, or on September 18, 1991,
Richelle was seated on a coach in the sala on the ground floor of the
apartment.7 The appellant forced her to drink a glass of ice cold beer. When she
refused, the appellant threatened to kill her. Afraid for her life, she drank the
beer from a glass. The appellant then embraced her, kissed her and touched her
breasts. Richelle resisted. Momentarily, she felt dizzy and fell unconscious.
Early the next morning, Richelle woke up and found herself lying in bed
completely naked. She felt severe pains in her vagina. She saw the appellant
beside her, also completely naked.8 She noticed that her vagina was bleeding
profusely. She asked Sabardan what he did to her and he told her
nothing.9 Richelle washed her vagina with water.10
In the evening of the fifth day of her detention, or on September 19, 1991, while
Richelle was sitting on the sofa on the ground floor, the appellant again forced
her to drink beer. She resisted but the appellant threatened to kill her anew. She
drank the beer, but consumed only about one-half of the contents of the glass.
She felt dizzy and lost consciousness. When she woke up in the morning, she
again felt severe pains in her vagina and saw blood in it.11
The appellant forced Richelle to drink either beer or juice on four other
occasions. Richelle felt dizzy afterwards, and would wake up completely naked,
feeling pains in her vagina.
On September 30, 1991, the appellant left the house, but closed the door outside
with three padlocks. At about 5:00 a.m. on that same day, Elizabeth de Luna, a
housewife who lived about thirty meters away from the appellant, heard
Richelle was, thereafter, brought to the police station for investigation. There,
she executed a written sworn statement dated October 2, 1991. She also signed
a criminal complaint charging the appellant of serious illegal detention with
rape.16
Dr. Jesusa O. Nieves, a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory
Service, conducted a physical and medical examination on the private
complainant on October 3, 1991. She prepared a Medico-Legal Report,17 with
the following findings:
General and Extragenital:

Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female subject.
Breasts are hemi-spherical with light brown areola and nipples
from which no secretions could be pressed out. Abdomen is

flat and soft.
According to the appellant, he never saw Richelle during the period of

September 15, 1991 to September 30, 1991, nor did he invite her to stay in his
apartment.20 He further asserted that he had nothing to do with the offense
charged and that Richelle was merely trying to exact money from him.21
There is lanugo-type growth of pubic hair. Labia majora are

full, convex and slightly gaping with the pinkish brown labia
minora presenting in between. On separating, the same is
disclosed an elastic, fleshly-type hymen with deep, healed
laceration at 7 oclock. External vaginal orifice offers
moderate resistance to the introduction of examining index
finger and the virgin-sized vaginal speculum. Vaginal canal is
narrow with prominent rugosities. Cervix is normal in size,
color and consistency.
Prosperidad Sabardan Soriano, the appellants sister, testified that she

customarily paid a visit to her brothers apartment. During the period of
September 15, 1991 up to September 30, 1991, she visited her brother on four
different occasions. The first was on September 17, 1991, which was the
appellants birthday; the second was on September 25, 1991, the witness natal
day. The third was on September 29, 1991; and finally, on September 30, 1991.
She never saw Richelle in her brothers apartment.22
Genital:
After due trial, the court rendered judgment on October 25, 1997, the decretal
portion of which reads:
CONCLUSION:
Subject is in non-virgin state physically.
There are no external signs of recent application of any form
of violence.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable

doubt of the crime of Serious Illegal Detention with Rape, and
therefore sentence (sic) him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
and to indemnify the private complainant the sum of P50,000.00 and to
pay the cost.
SO ORDERED.23
The appellant now appeals the decision, contending that:
REMARKS:
Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gramnegative diplococci and for spermatozoa.
The Defense of the Appellant
The appellant denied having raped Richelle. He testified that he was single, 56
years of age, and was residing at No. 11 Luz Street, San Carlos Heights
Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal.18 He alleged that he taught
catechism in front of the Central School of Angono and the school in Barangay
Pag-asa.19 He was a person of good moral character and could not have
perpetrated the crime charged.
I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED

SINCE THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DID NOT CONFORM TO
THE CRIME CHARGED.
II. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT HAD SUFFERED DETENTION OR THAT SHE
HAD BEEN RAPED.
III. THE PROSECUTIONS EVIDENCE DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE
AWARD OF DAMAGES.24
The Courts Ruling
Anent the first and second assigned errors, the appellant contends that he was
deprived of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him because he was charged of detaining and raping the private
complainant in his apartment at No. 5 Linaluz Street, San Carlos Heights
Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal. However, the prosecutions
evidence shows that she was detained and raped at No. 11-C Luz Street, San
Carlos Heights Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal. Furthermore, the
appellant asserts that under the allegations of the Information, the private
complainant was raped when she was "deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious by reason of a drug" which the appellant supposedly administered
to her. The prosecution, however, failed to adduce evidence that he
administered any drug to the private complainant before she was raped.25 If this
were true, Richelle could not have known that she was raped by the appellant
since she testified that she felt dizzy and lost consciousness after drinking beer
and juice.
The appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to prove that Richelle was
illegally detained by the appellant in his apartment, and that he forced her to
have sexual intercourse with him. The evidence on record, the appellant insists,
shows that Richelle agreed to stay with him in his apartment after leaving their
house and consented to having sexual intercourse with him. From the time
Richelle arrived at his apartment in the evening of September 15, 1991 up to
September 30, 1991, she never tried to escape, nor shouted for help, despite the
proximity of the appellants apartment to their house and that of Elizabeth de
Luna.
The contention of the appellant does not persuade.
The verisimilitude and probative weight of the testimony of Richelle, that the
appellant detained her against her will and raped her in his apartment, were not
debilitated by her mistake in declaring that the apartment of the appellant was at
No. 5-C Linaluz Street, when, in fact, it was at No. 11-C Luz Street, San Carlos
Heights Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal. It must be stressed that
the situs criminis is not an essential element in rape. The gravamen of the felony
is the carnal knowledge by the accused of the private complainant under any of
the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. Richelles mistake was only minor and collateral to the gravamen of
the crime charged. She consistently testified that the appellant detained and
raped her in his apartment, only about thirty meters away from their house in
San Carlos Heights Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal. The appellant

admitted that he resided in the said apartment, and that Richelle and her family
were his neighbors. In People vs. Monieva,26 we stressed that where the
inconsistency is not an essential element of the crime, such inconsistency is
insignificant and cannot have any bearing on the essential fact testified to. It has
been held that inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony, referring to
minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime, do not diminish the
witnesses credibility.
The case for the prosecution was not enfeebled by its failure to adduce in
evidence the substance or drug which the appellant forced Richelle to drink and
which made her dizzy and unconscious, or its failure to present an expert
witness to testify on the presence of any sedative in the beer and juice which
Richelle was made to drink.
First. The drug or substance in question is only corroborative to Richelles
testimony that she became dizzy and unconscious when the appellant forced her
to drink beer and juice. There can be no other conclusion than that the appellant
mixed a sedative in the beverage which he forced Richelle to drink. It must be
stressed that Richelle was then barely twelve years old. The alcoholic content of
the beer must have caused her to feel dizzy and lose consciousness. She was
rendered to such stupor, weakness of body and mind as to prevent effectual
resistance and preclude the possibility of consent.
Second. In People vs. Del Rosario,27 we held that a test to determine the
presence of any sedative or drug in the drinks given to a victim is not an
indispensable element in the prosecution for rape:
True, there was no test conducted to determine the presence of any sedative or
drug in the drinks given to the victims which caused them to lose momentary
control of their faculties. But this is of little consequence as the same is not an
indispensable element in the prosecution for rape. Under the circumstances, it
suffices that the victim was found to have been unconscious at the time the
offender had carnal knowledge of her.28
Richelle testified that during the fourth and fifth days of her captivity, before
she was rescued on September 30, 1991, the appellant forced her to drink beer
or juice, threatening to kill her if she refused. Despite her resistance, the
appellant succeeded in forcing her to drink the beverage. Richelle felt dizzy and
unconscious as a consequence, and when she came to, found herself completely
naked with the appellant beside her who was also completely nude.29
Q So that, it is a fact that you were made to drink beer for seven (7)
times?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Richelle testified, thus:

Q Question No. 22, Madam Witness, Bukod sa ginawa niyang
paghahalik at paghimas niya sa iyong dede na una mong binanggit,
mayroon pa ba siyang ginawa sa iyo?
Sagot: Noon pong ikatlong araw, meaning on the 17th, sa bahay ni
Mang Domeng pagdating niya galing sa pagtuturo ng religion ay pilit
niya akong pinainom ng beer at matapos kong mainom ang halos
kalahati ng isang boteng beer sa kapipilit niya ay nawalan na ako ng
malay at nang magising ako ng madaling araw ay naramdaman ko na
masakit ang aking katawan pati na ang aking kike at katabi ko na si
Mang Domeng na hubot hubad kung kaya tinanong ko siya kung ano
ang nangyari at bakit ko siya katabi at sinabi sa akin na wala at umalis
na siya sa aking kwarto, at halos hindi na siya umaalis ng bahay at
kung umalis man ay sandali lang at bumabalik agad ito at kung ilang
gabi niya akong pilit na pinaiinom ng beer o kaya ay juice at tuwing
nakakainom ako ng mga ito ay nawawalan ako ng malay tao at tuwing
magigising ako ay katabi ko na si Mang Domeng na palaging hubot
hubad at wala ang aking panty. Do you confirm this?
Q How about juice, how many times did he made (sic) you [to] drink
juice?
A Sometimes he asked me to drink juice and sometimes beer for seven
(7) times, Your Honor.
Q So that, what you want to tell us on those seven (7) occasions that
you were made to drink it was either beer or juice?
A Yes, Your Honor.
ATTY. MENDOZA:
Q Do you recall how many times you were asked to drink beer?
A I dont know, sir. I just know juice and beer.
Q Do you recall how many times you were asked to drink juice?
A Yes, sir.
A No, sir.
Q How many times did the accused ask you to drink juice?
Q Was there any instance that the accused asked you to drink beer and
juice at the same time?
A Seven (7) times, sir.

A None, sir.
Q The equal number of times you were asked to drink beer, is it not?
A Yes, sir. Sometimes beer, sometimes juice, but I was asked to drink
for seven (7) times.
Q When you were asked by the accused to drink juice, is it not a fact
that you were asked to drink juice while you were in the sofa or
downstairs?
COURT:
A Sometimes in the sofa, sometimes in the room, sir.30
Understandably, Richelle could not have seen the appellant insert his penis into
her vagina since she lost consciousness after drinking the beer and juice.
However, in rape cases, carnal knowledge of the victim by the accused may be
proven not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence,
provided that there is more than one circumstance; the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.31
In the case at bar, the evidence on record shows that, on the fourth and fifth day
of Richelles captivity, and while seated on the sofa in the sala of the ground
floor of the appellants apartment, the appellant forced her to drink beer. She
felt dizzy and lost consciousness, and when she came to, found herself in the
room on the second floor of the apartment, completely naked, with the appellant
beside her. Richelle felt severe pains in her vagina and was petrified when she
saw plenty of blood on it. She washed her bloodied vagina with water. To quote
the testimony of Richelle:
Q Madam witness, lets go back to the 4th day that you were inside the
room and that the following day you wake (sic) up early in the morning
nude where the accused was nowhere in that place, when you wake
(sic) up in that morning, what did you feel in your body?
A I was afraid, sir.32
Q On the 5th day when you wake (sic) up in the sofa was your vagina
bleeding?
A Yes, sir.
Q On the 4th, on the 5th day that your vagina was bleeding, Madame
witness, is it not a fact that you washed your vagina?
A I washed it, sir.
Q What did you use in washing your vagina?
A Water, sir.
Q With a soap?
A No, sir.33
A My vagina is (sic) painful, sir.

Q That is (sic) all that you felt, your vagina is (sic) painful, is it not?
A Yes, sir.
Q As a matter of fact, there was no blood in your vagina, is it not?
The testimony of Richelle, that the appellant succeeded in raping her, is

corroborated by Dr. Jesusa Nieves medical findings that Richelle was no
longer in a virgin state physically and that her hymen had a deep laceration at
seven oclock when she was examined on October 3, 1991.
Q Can you please tell us your findings with regard to the genital of the
victim?
A There was, sir.

Q Small quantity or big quantity?
A Big quantity, sir.
A Upon the examination of the genie layer, the sex organ of the victim,
the only pertinent findings Ive got was the laceration, a deep healed
laceration at the hymen, sir.
Q What does that signifies (sic)?
Q What did you do with your vagina with full of blood as you testified?
A That a hard blunt object was forcefully inserted to the genie layer of
the victim, sir.
Q I notice in this findings (sic) of yours there is a laceration at 7:00
oclock, can you please clarify this?
A The laceration at the 7 oclock only means that since the hymen is
circular in appearance, it is being correlated to the face of the watch so
when we say that the laceration is located at 7 oclock then it only
means the same that the laceration or the tear is located in the same
position as the number 7 of the clock, sir.
Q Now, you claimed that upon your examination, one of your findings
that [there]is a laceration of (sic) 7 oclock, what could have cause (sic)
the laceration of (sic) 7 oclock?
Atty. Mendoza:
Already answered, Your Honor, the forceful insertion by blunt
instrument.
Fiscal Tacla:
Q Would you consider the penis or a male organ as the blunt
instrument which to have put (sic) into her organ?
A Yes, sir.
We reject the appellants submission that he could not have raped Richelle
during the period of September 17, 1991 to September 30, 1991 because when
she was examined by Dr. Nieves on October 3, 1991, the lacerations in her
hymen had already healed. The appellants reliance on the testimony of Dr.
Nieves, that the healing period of the lacerations on the hymen was seven (7)
days from the infliction of such lacerations, is misplaced. The doctor did not
testify that the laceration in the hymen of Richelle could not have been healed
in less than seven days. Indeed, the healing of wounds is dependent on several
factors: (a) vascularity; (b) age of the person; (c) degree of rest or
immobilization; and (d) nature of injury.35
In fine, although the lacerations were already healed by the time Richelle was
examined by Dr. Nieves on October 3, 1991, it is not impossible that Richelle
was raped by the appellant for the first time on the fourth day of her captivity. It
is well settled that healed lacerations do not necessarily negate rape.36
The appellant asserted that Richelle consented to having sex with him, because
she shouted, "Mang Domeng, tama na, ayaw ko na!," when he kissed and
embraced her, and mashed her breasts. The appellant asserts that, in saying,
"ayaw ko na," twelve-year-old Richelle was consenting to his prior sexual
assaults. Richelles testimony reads:
Q Throughout these days that the accused embraced you, kissed you
and got hold of your breast, you did not shout?
A I shouted everyday, sir.
Q Will you tell this Court what words you used when you shouted?
Q What was the state of the virginity of the lady when you conducted
an examination upon her person?
A I shouted, "Mang Domeng, tama na, ayaw ko na."
A She is no longer a virgin, sir.
Q Why, Madame witness, when you said "ayaw ko na," was there any
instance that you agreed to Mang Domeng?
Q What made you conclude that thing?

A That is based on my findings at the hymen, sir.34
FISCAL TACLA:
What is that agreement all about, Your Honor?
ATTY. MENDOZA:
Well, "ayaw ko na" Your Honor, she presumed that ayaw na niya iyong
nagaganap sa kanya. My question is on what was happening to her that
she is now testifying, was there any occasion that she agreed.
COURT:
Answer.
Witness:
A Ayaw ko na po iyong ginagawa niya sa akin. Gusto ko nang umuwi
sa amin.
ATTY. MENDOZA:
Q In all that occasions you did not box nor kick the accused, is it not?
A I tried to fight back and I even pulled his hair, sir.37
The appellants contention deserves scant consideration. As gleaned from
Richelles testimony, she had been shouting and pleading to the appellant
everyday to stop the lascivious acts and the sexual advances on her. She
resolutely fought back and even pulled the appellants hair. In fine, when the
appellant subjected Richelle to his bestial desires, Richelle resisted, to no avail.
If, as claimed by the appellant, Richelle had consented to having sexual
intercourse with him from September 16, 1991 to September 30, 1991, there
would no longer have been a need for him to force her to drink beer and juice to
render her dizzy and unconscious.
The testimony of Richelle should not be considered in its truncated parts but in
its entirety. The meaning of the words in a portion of the testimony of a witness
should be considered, taking into account the entirety of the latters testimony.
Besides, bearing in mind the chastity and bashfulness of a typical Filipina,
especially one in her tender years, it is highly inconceivable for Richelle, a
young girl, to consent to sexual acts with the appellant. Richelle was barely in
her teens when the harrowing experience took place. We find it deviant for a
twelve-year-old nave and unsophisticated grade school student to be consenting

to sexual intercourse with the appellant. Richelles unwaivering sincerity and
candor while testifying in court convinces us that she was constrained by her
desire to seek justice for the bestial act committed upon her person.38 In fact,
Richelle cried while recalling the sexual assaults on her.
The appellant harped on his being a catechist of good moral character to escape
conviction. This hardly justifies the conclusion that he is innocent of the crime
charged. Indeed, religiosity is not always a badge of good conduct and faith is
no guarantee against any sexual perversion. In the case of People vs.
Diopita,39 this Court pronounced that an accused is not entitled to an acquittal
simply because he is of good moral character and exemplary conduct. The
affirmance or reversal of his conviction must be resolved on the basic issue of
whether the prosecution had discharged its duty of proving his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. Since the evidence of the crime in the instant case is more
than sufficient to convict, the evidence of the appellants good moral character
cannot prevail.
The appellant contends that Richelle consented to stay in his apartment; hence,
he cannot be convicted of serious illegal detention. We agree with the
appellants assertion that he is not guilty of serious illegal detention, but we do
not agree that Richelle consented to stay in his apartment from September 17,
1991 until she was rescued on September 30, 1991. Understandably, Richelle
did not leave the appellants apartment on September 30, 1991. She had just
surreptitiously left their house in a rebellious mood and had nowhere to go. She
believed, at that time, that she was safe with the appellant, who was their
neighbor and her brothers friend. However, when the appellant sat on her bed
in the evening of the same day, completely naked, Richelle decided to leave the
next day. She balked at leaving only when the appellant warned her that her
mother, Nimfa, would berate her for sleeping at his apartment. Obviously, in
warning Richelle of what to expect from her mother, the appellant wanted to
instill fear in her mind to force her to remain in his apartment. Richelle should
have left the apartment and returned home that day, and contend with her
mothers anger for leaving their house and sleeping in the appellants
apartment. However, Richelle, then barely twelve years old and a mere grade
six pupil, cannot be expected to react and decide like an adult would. She could
not have foreseen the appellants evil intent of raping her. Moreover, even if she
wanted to leave the appellants apartment, she could not do so because the
appellant did not allow her to leave. Frustrated in his first attempt, the appellant
was determined to deflower Richelle. And the appellant succeeded, because on

the fourth day of Richelles stay in the appellants apartment, the appellant
forced her to drink beer which caused her to feel dizzy and rendered her
unconscious. The appellant forthwith raped her.
In light of the evidence on record, the original and primordial intention of the
appellant in keeping Richelle in his apartment was to rape her and not to
deprive her of her liberty. Hence, the appellant is guilty only of rape under
Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, and not of the complex
crime of serious illegal detention with rape under Article 267, in relation to
Articles 335 and 48 of the Code.40 Hence, the trial court correctly sentenced the
appellant to reclusion perpetua.
Richelle could not have escaped from the appellants apartment during her stay
therein from September 17, 1991 until September 30, 1991, because the
appellant locked the door from the outside whenever he would go out. Richelle
could move around the house, but the windows on the ground and second floors
had grills with smoked glass.41 Richelle tried to open the windows, but she
could not.
We, likewise, find it incredible for Richelle to contrive a story of rape which
would expose herself to a lifetime of shame, allow an examination of her
private parts and face public trial.42 A rape victim who testifies in a categorical,
straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a
credible witness. The bare denial of the appellant cannot prevail over the
positive testimony of Richelle. Well-settled is the rule that testimonies of young
victims of rape deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a
mere fabrication.43 In the case at bar, the trial court found the testimony of the
victim to be trustworthy and convincing. It has been held in a long line of cases
that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are afforded great respect, since it is the trial judge who observes
and monitors the behavior and demeanor of the witnesses.
Finally, the assertion of the appellant that the charge against him was motivated
by Richelles desire to extort money from him is preposterous. The appellants
testimony to prove his claim is hearsay because he was merely told by his
counsel of Richelles desire for money. The appellant failed to present his
counsel to prove his claim. Besides, the appellant was merely a catechist and
had no apparent sustainable means of livelihood, and only survived through the
support given to him by his siblings. We agree with the findings of the trial
court, viz:
The accused tried to insinuate ulterior or improper motive on the part of
the complainant by alleging that complainant Richelle charge[d] him
with this offense because they are asking money as told [to] him by
Atty. Mendoza.
This allegation is patently unmeritorious and cannot be given any value
by the court, as it was hearsay, and Atty. Mendoza was not presented to
pursue or give light on this allegation. At any rate, the mother of the
offended party, Nimfa Banluta, testified that she got the insinuation that
the sister of the accused was willing to settle the case through her
friend living near the street of the accused.44
It is rudimentary that where there is no showing that the private complainant was
impelled by any improper motive in making the accusation against the appellant,
her complaint is entitled to full faith and credit. Hence, when the appellant could not
present any sensible justification as to why the private complainant had accused
him, such fact logically proves that no improper motive propelled the latter to
charge the former of such a serious offense as rape.45
The trial court correctly awarded Richelle civil indemnity of P50,000. This is in the
nature of actual and compensatory damages, and is obligatory upon conviction for
rape.46 In addition, she is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.
Moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of
proof, for it is assumed that she suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.
Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.47
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 69, in Criminal Case No. 1590-B, finding the
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of serious illegal detention
with rape is MODIFIED. Appellant DOMINGO SABARDAN is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The appellant
is ORDERED to pay the victim, Richelle Banluta, P50,000 as civil indemnity
and P50,000 as moral damages. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, in violation of the

above-cited law.
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 205227
April 7, 2014

vs.
MARCO P. ALEJANDRO, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
On appeal is the Decision1 dated November 11, 2011 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03483 which affirmed the judgment2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 convicting
appellant of illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). In its Resolution3 dated March 14, 2012, the
CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by appellant.
The Facts
Marco P. Alejandro (appellant), along with Imelda G. Solema and Jenny V. del
Rosario, were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9 l 65
under the following Information:
That on or about the 12th day of July, 2006, in the City of Muntinlupa,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping
and aiding one another, not being authorized by law did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade deliver and give away to another,
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug weighing 98.51 grams
Contrary to law.4
When arraigned, all three accused pleaded not guilty. Upon demurrer to
evidence filed by accused Jenny del Rosario, the trial court rendered judgment
acquitting her of the crime charged considering that her mere presence in the car
used by appellant is not indicative of conspiracy in the sale of illegal drugs.5
At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the following:
1. The identity of the accused as the persons charged;
2. The jurisdiction of this Court over the persons of the accused;
3. Police Inspector Ruben Mamaril Apostol Jr. is a member of a PNP
Crime Laboratory Office as of July 12, 2006 and he is an expert in
Forensic Chemistry;
4. That a request for laboratory examination was made for the
specimens allegedly confiscated from the accused;
5. The existence and authenticity of the request for examination of the
seized items and Request for a drug test on the persons of the accused;
6. That pursuant to the requests for the drug test and examination of the
specimens, the corresponding Regional Crime Laboratory Office,
Calabarzon issued two (2) chemistry reports, D-267-06 and
CRIM[D]T-286-06 that subject specimens submitted are positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride; and
7. That only a representative sample of the specimens submitted were
examined by the Forensic Chemist which consist of one (1) transparent
sachet containing white crystalline substance in black and red
markings.6
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the following factual milieu based on the testimonies
of SPO1 Jaime A. Cariaso (poseur-buyer), SPO1 Norman Jesus P. Platon and
Police Inspector Ruben M. Apostol, Jr. (Forensic Chemical Officer):
In the morning of July 11, 2006, a Confidential Informant (CI) went to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office 4-A
(CALABARZON) at Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba City, Laguna. The CI
informed Regional Director P/Supt. Raul L. Bargamento that he was able to set
up a deal with a certain "Aida" who directed him to look for a buyer of 100
grams of shabu for the price of P360,000.00.7
Immediately, P/Supt. Bargamento instructed Police Chief Inspector Julius
Ceasar V. Ablang to form a team who will conduct a buy-bust operation. PCI
Ablang organized the team composed of eleven police officers and made the
proper coordination with PDEA. Since the target area is situated in Barangay
Bayanan, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila, the team likewise obtained the
requisite "Authority to Operate Outside AOR".8 During the briefing, SPO1
Cariaso was designated as poseur-buyer while SPO1 Platon will be his back-up
arresting officer. Four pieces of five hundred peso (P500) bills were then
prepared and marked by SPO1 Cariaso. The said bills stacked on the boodle
money were placed inside SPO1 Cariasos belt bag. On the same day, SPO1
Cariaso and SPO1 Platon, along with the CI, conducted a surveillance of the
house of "Aida" and vicinity. Prior to these preparations, the CI had contacted
"Aida" through her cellphone and arranged the 2:00 p.m. meeting/sale
transaction the following day.9
The next day, July 12, 2006, at around 12:00 noon, the team accompanied by
the CI boarded two service vehicles and proceeded to the target area. They
arrived at Barangay Bayanan at 1:45 p.m. SPO1 Cariaso and the CI parked the
Toyota Revo infront of the house of "Aida" while SPO1 Platon and the rest of
the team, who rode on another vehicle (Isuzu Crosswind), waited at a distance.
As agreed during the briefing, SPO1 Platon positioned himself in a spot where
he could see SPO1 Cariaso. The other police officers posted themselves where
they could see SPO1 Platon as the latter will wait for a "missed call" from SPO1
Cariaso.10
SPO1 Cariaso and the CI alighted from the Revo and went to the gate of the
house of "Aida". They called the attention of a woman whom the CI identified
as "Aida". The woman came out of the house and the CI introduced SPO1
Cariaso to her as the buyer of shabu. After the introduction, the CI left. The
woman asked SPO1 Cariaso where the money is and he opened his belt bag to
show her the money. SPO1 Cariaso in turn asked her where the shabu is and she
replied that he should wait for Marco (appellant). SPO1 Cariaso and the woman
then went inside the Revo and waited for appellant. After about five minutes, a
Toyota Vios arrived and parked infront of the Revo. The woman told SPO1
Cariaso that the driver of the Vios was appellant.11
Appellant alighted from the Vios and went inside the Revo. The woman
introduced appellant to SPO1 Cariaso as the buyer. After appellant ascertained
that SPO1 Cariaso had the money with him, he went down and got something
from the Vios. When appellant returned, he was carrying an item wrapped in
newspaper. Inside the Revo, appellant uncovered the item and SPO1 Cariaso
saw a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which
appellant handed to him. Appellant then demanded for the money. SPO1
Cariaso gave appellant the belt bag containing the marked bills and boodle
money and quickly pressed the call key of his cellphone, the pre-arranged signal
for the team that the sale had been consummated.12
Within fifteen seconds, SPO1 Platon rushed towards the Revo and the rest of
the team followed. The team introduced themselves as PDEA agents. SPO1
Cariaso arrested appellant and the woman ("Aida") who was later identified as
Imelda G. Solema. Meanwhile, SPO1 Platon arrested the woman passenger in
the Vios who was later identified as Jenny del Rosario.
The seized plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was marked by
SPO1 Cariaso with his initials "EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" and signed it at
the bottom. SPO1 Cariaso also recovered the marked P500 bills and boodle
money from appellant. The three accused and the confiscated items were
brought to the PDEA Regional Office in Camp Vicente Lim.13
At the PDEA regional office, appellant and his co-accused were booked and the
confiscated items were inventoried by the investigator in the presence of SPO1
Cariaso, a media representative and a barangay councilor. A request for
laboratory examination of the seized transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, weighing 98.51 grams, was prepared and signed by
P/Supt. Bargamento. There were also requests made for the physical
examination and drug test of the arrested persons. The request for laboratory
examination and the specimen marked "EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" were
brought by SPO1 Cariaso to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional

Crime Laboratory Office 4A. Result of the chemical analysis performed by Pol.
Insp. Apostol, Jr. showed that the said specimen is positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Appellant and his co-accused
likewise were found positive for methamphetamine based on screening and
confirmatory test done on their urine samples.14
The prosecution presented and offered the following evidence: (1) PreOperation Report dated July 12, 2006 submitted by PCI Ablang (Team Leader)
and noted by P/Supt. Bargamento; (2) Authority to Operate Outside AOR dated
July 12, 2006 granted by PDEA Police Chief Inspector Emmanuel Salvador L.
Enriquez; (3) Certificate of Coordination dated July 12, 2006 from PDEA; (4)
Request for Laboratory Examination dated July 12, 2006 of specimen marked
"EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" with signature of poseur-buyer; (5) Request for
Drug Test of arrested persons dated July 12, 2006 signed by P/Supt.
Bargamento; (6) Request for Physical/Medical Examination of arrested persons
signed by P/Supt. Bargamento; (7) Chemistry Report No. D-267-06 dated July
13, 2006 submitted by Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. showing positive findings on
specimen marked "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006"; (8) Chemistry Report No.
CRIMDT-268-06 to 270-06 submitted by Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. showing
positive findings on the urine samples taken from appellant and his co-accused;
(9) Certification dated July 12, 2006 issued by Medico-Legal Officer Dr. Roy
A. Camarillo of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory 4A stating that "there are
no external signs of recent application of any form of trauma noted during the
time of examination" on the persons of appellant and his co-accused; (10)
Certificate of Inventory prepared by PCI Ablang and signed/witnessed by a
media representative (Lyka Manalo) and Barangay Councilor (Jerusalem
Jordan); (11) One transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance with markings "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" and signed by poseurbuyer SPO1 Cariaso; (12) Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer dated July 13, 2006
executed by SPO1 Cariaso; (13) Affidavit of Back-Up/Arresting Officer dated
July 13, 2006 executed by SPO1 Platon; (14) Booking Sheet and Arrest Reports
of appellant and his co-accused containing their fingerprints, but which only
Imelda Solema signed while appellant and Jenny del Rosario refused to sign;
and (15) four pieces P500 bills marked money with serial numbers CM180235,
YA867249, ZS853938 and ZW337843.15
Version of the Defense
Appellants defense is anchored on the claim that no buy-bust took place. He

testified that on July 12, 2006, at around 1:30 p.m., he went to the house of his
co-accused Imelda Solema whom he knows is called "Im". The purpose of his
visit to Im was to rent her apartment because his girlfriend is arriving from
Japan. Along the way, he saw Jenny del Rosario with her baby and let them
rode on his car (Vios) as they were going the same way. Upon reaching Ims
house at 1:45 p.m., he parked his vehicle infront of said house but a barangay
tanod told him not to park there as it was a towing area. And so he parked his
Vios inside the garage of Ims house which has a steel gate and knocked at its
door. Meanwhile, Jenny del Rosario was left inside the Vios.16
Upon entering the house of Im, appellant claimed he was immediately grabbed
by a man who made him lie down. He would later learn at PDEA that the mans
name is "Toto" and his female companion is Maam Carla. These PDEA agents
took his belt bag containing cash (P48,000) and his jewelry. He was also
handcuffed and brought inside his car where Toto, Ablang and a driver also
boarded. He saw SPO1 Cariaso for the first time at the PDEA office. He
likewise does not know SPO1 Platon. At the PDEA office, appellant and his coaccused were photographed after they were made to change clothes. Appellant
further claimed that PCI Ablang demanded money (P1 million) from him in
exchange for his release. When he was unable to give such amount, they just
detained him and his co-accused. Their urine samples were taken and submitted
for drug testing.17
As to the shabu allegedly seized from him in a buy-bust operation, appellant
vehemently denied having such drug in his possession at the time. They have
already been detained for two days when they were photographed with the said
item. The taking of photographs was done in the presence of PDEA personnel,
barangay officials from Canlubang and the media.18
On cross-examination, appellant explained that he had talked to his lawyer
regarding the filing of a case against the PDEA officers who tried to extort
money from him but his lawyer suggested they should first do something about
this case. He added that he does not know of any reason why SPO1 Cariaso is
accusing him of selling an illegal drug.19
Imelda G. Solema testified that on July 12, 2006 between 1:00 to 2:00 in the
afternoon, she was inside her house watching TV together with her seven-yearold son when some persons carrying long firearms arrived asking if she is
"Aida". She shouted to them that she is not "Aida" but "Im." These armed
persons searched her house for shabu and when she shouted she was pushed
into a chair. After ten minutes of searching, nothing was found in her house.
When somebody knocked on the door, one of the armed men opened it and they
saw appellant. They pulled appellant inside, poked a gun at him, made him lie
down and handcuffed him. She and appellant were brought outside the house
and boarded into the Revo. They waited for the other car for the armed men to
board appellant there. Thereafter, they were brought to the PDEA office in
Canlubang where they were detained.20
The RTC found that the police officers complied with all the requirements in
conducting a buy-bust operation, and that their testimonies were spontaneous,
straightforward and consistent on all material points. On the other hand, the
RTC observed that the testimonies of defense witnesses do not jibe or are
inconsistent with each other. It held that appellants denial of the crime charged
is a negative self-serving evidence and cannot prevail over the positive and
straightforward testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution who, being
police officers, are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with
law, and who have no reason to fabricate the charges against the accused.
On cross-examination, Imelda Solema admitted that appellant was her friend

even prior to their arrest because he was the "kumpare" of her sister. Appellant
went to her house at the time as they had an agreement that he will rent one of
the units of her apartment.21
Convinced that appellant and his co-accused Imelda Solema had conspired in
selling shabu, the RTC noted that it was the latter who called up the former
about the offer of the poseur-buyer SPO1 Cariaso to buy shabu. Appellant thus
brought the pack of shabu to be sold to SPO1 Cariaso, unaware of the
entrapment plan of the police officers. As to their warrantless arrest, the RTC
held that such arrest was legal since the accused were caught in flagrante delicto
selling shabu, a dangerous drug, to a poseur-buyer who turned out to be a police
officer, in a legitimate buy-bust operation.
The defense presented another witness, Rowena S. Gutierrez, a siomai/sago

vendor who allegedly saw what transpired at the house of Imelda Solema from a
distance of 6-8 meters. She testified that on July 12, 2006 at past 2:00 p.m., a
red car immediately parked infront of the house of Imelda Solema, whom they
call "Im." A man and a woman (whom she later learned were police officers)
alighted from said car and entered the house of Im. Not too long after, a silver
car also arrived which was supposed to park in the area but there were barangay
tanods and so it parked instead in the garage of the mother of Im. She later
learned that the driver of the silver car was appellant. Appellant went out of his
car and proceeded to Ims house. When appellant was already inside Ims
house, two vehicles (Revo and Crosswind) suddenly arrived and there were
armed men who alighted from said vehicles and entered Ims house. Thereafter,
she heard Im crying as she was being held by a woman and a man. The armed
men forced Im and appellant into the Revo. The persons left were a female and
a child who eventually drove the silver car.22
On cross-examination, the witness admitted that the relatives of her friend Im
asked her to testify because the others who also saw the incident were afraid to
do so.23
Ruling of the RTC
Accordingly, the RTC rendered judgment as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding the accused MARCO
ALEJANDRO y PINEDA and IMELDA SOLEMA y GUTIERREZ GUILTY
of violating Sec. 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 beyond
reasonable doubt, they are sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to suffer
all the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay a fine of ONE MILLION
PESOS (Php 1,000,000.00) each with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.
The Acting Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the subject "shabu"
contained in a transparent plastic sachet which was marked as Exhibit "J" to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.
Accused MARCO ALEJANDRO y PINEDA is ordered committed to the
National Bilibid Prisons and accused IMELDA SOLEMA y GUTIERREZ is
ordered committed to the Philippine Correctional for Women until further
orders.
The preventive imprisonment undergone by the accused shall be credited in

their favor.
SO ORDERED.24
Ruling of the CA
By Decision dated November 11, 2011, the CA affirmed appellants conviction.
The CA rejected appellants argument that there is no proof beyond reasonable
doubt that a sale transaction of illegal drugs took place as there appeared to be
no prior meeting or conversation between him and appellant, and hence they
could not have agreed on a price certain for a specified weight of drugs to be
sold. It stressed that from the prosecutions narration of facts, the basis of the
meeting between the poseur-buyer and "Aida" was the arrangement made by the
CI for the sale of shabu; hence there was already an agreement for the sale of
100 grams of shabu for the amount ofP360,000.00.
The CA was likewise convinced that the corpus delicti of the crime has been
established. It held that the failure to strictly comply with the requirements of
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accuseds
arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible.
Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
Firmly established in our jurisprudence is the rule that in the prosecution for
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following essential elements must be
proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the
illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were
identified. Implicit in all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the confiscated
prohibited or regulated drug as evidence.25
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust
operation is proof of the concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.26
The above elements were satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Poseurbuyer SPO1 Cariaso identified appellant as the seller of shabu. While the police
officers were initially unaware of the identity of appellant, as their CI had only
informed them about appellants co-accused, "Aida" (Imelda Solema) with
whom the CI had set up a drug deal for 100 grams of shabu for the price
of P360,000.00, appellants presence at the buy-bust scene, and his act of
delivering the shabu directly to SPO1 Cariaso clearly identified him as the seller
who himself demanded and received the payment from SPO1 Cariaso after
giving the shabu to the latter.
Appellants arrival at the house of Imelda Solema at the appointed time of the
sale transaction arranged the previous day by the CI, and with Imelda Solema
informing SPO1 Cariaso that they should wait for appellant after SPO1 Cariaso
asked for the shabu, were clear indications that they acted in coordination and
conspiracy to effect the sale of shabu to a buyer brought by the CI and who
turned out to be a police officer detailed with the PDEA. SPO1 Cariaso placed
his initials and date of buy-bust on the plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance sold to him by appellant. After Forensic Chemical Officer
Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. conducted a chemical analysis of the said specimen, the
result yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a
dangerous drug. The same specimen was presented in court as evidence after it
was properly identified by SPO1 Cariaso and Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. to be the
same substance handed by appellant to SPO1 Cariaso and examined by Pol.
Insp. Apostol, Jr.
SPO1 Platon corroborated the testimony of SPO1 Cariaso that they conducted a
buy-bust operation as he positioned himself across the street 15 meters from the
house of Imelda Solema. From his vantage, SPO1 Platon saw the following
transpired: SPOI Cariaso accompanied by the CI in front of the house of Imelda
Solema; SPO1 Cariaso conversing with Imelda Solema; the subsequent arrival
of appellant on board the Vios; appellant going inside the Revo where SPO1
Cariaso and Imelda Solema waited for him; appellant getting something from
the Vios and returning to the Revo carrying the said item. Upon hearing the call
from SPO1 Cariasos cellphone, SPO1 Platon immediately proceeded to the
scene and arrested Jenny del Rosario who was still inside the Vios. At that
moment, SPO1 Cariaso had already arrested appellant and Imelda Solema,
confiscated the transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
and recovered the marked money from appellant.
Clearly, all the elements of the crime were established by both the oral and
object evidence presented in court. It is settled that in cases involving violations
of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are
police officers for they enjoy the presumption of having performed their duties
in a regular manner, unless, of course, there is evidence to the contrary
suggesting ill-motive on their part or deviation from the regular performance of
their duties.27 Since no proof of such ill-motive on the part of the PDEA buybust team was adduced by appellant, the RTC and CA did not err in giving full
faith and credence to the prosecutions account of the buy-bust operation. This
Court has repeatedly stressed that a buy-bust operation (which is a form of
entrapment) is a valid means of arresting violators of R.A. No. 9165.28
Appellant assails the CA in not correctly interpreting the requirements set forth
in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules and
regulations. He harps on the failure to immediately mark the seized shabu at the
scene of the incident and photograph the same, and the inventory of the
confiscated items which was not shown to have been done in the presence of the
accused. As to the absence of testimony by the investigator and the receiving
employee of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, appellant argues this is fatal
to the case of the prosecution. He thus contends that the chain of custody was
broken in this case.
We sustain the CAs ruling on the chain of custody issue.
Under Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of
2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, "chain of custody" is defined as the
duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory
to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature
of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use
in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 laid down the procedure for the custody
and disposition of confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs.
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:
(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 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall
be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which
shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be
issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject
item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential
chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time
frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally
issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be
examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final
certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
xxxx
On the other hand, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 reads:
barangay councilor. We thus find substantial compliance with the requirements

of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and IRR.
(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 the 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[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
Time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that substantial

compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not
necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible.30 In the instant case,
although the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, their noncompliance did not affect the
evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from appellant as the chain of custody of
the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case.
In this case, while SPO1 Cariaso testified that he immediately marked the
transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance sold to him by
appellant, there was no statement as to whether such marking was made at the
place of arrest. From the records it is clear that such marking was done upon
reaching the PDEA office before its turnover to the investigator on duty. What
is important is that the seized specimen never left the custody of SPO1 Cariaso
as he was present throughout the physical inventory being conducted by the said
investigator.
This Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the prosecution
to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and
photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to the guidelines, is not fatal. It
does not automatically render accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of the accused.29
Records reveal that only the marked money was photographed at the PDEA
office. The Certificate of Inventory, though not signed by the accused, was duly
signed by team leader PCI Ablang, a representative from the media and a
In the case of People v. Kamad,31 the Court enumerated the links that the
prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be
as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of
the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.32
The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the transparent
plastic sachet containing shabu during the buy-bust operation. Records show
that from the time appellant handed to SPO1 Cariaso the said item, only SPO1
Cariaso was in possession of the same until it was brought to the PDEA office.
SPO1 Cariaso himself marked the said sachet of shabu with his initials and date
of buy-bust: "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006." While the marking was not
immediately made at the crime scene, it does not automatically impair the
integrity of the chain of custody as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items have been preserved.33
The second link is the turnover of the shabu at the PDEA office. SPO1 Cariaso
testified that he turned over the seized plastic sachet containing shabu with his
markings "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" to the investigator who proceeded with
the inventory thereof, along with the marked money also confiscated from
appellant. He was present next to the investigator while the latter was
conducting the inventory.
The third link constitutes the delivery of the request for laboratory examination
and the specimen to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory. It was likewise SPO1
Cariaso who brought the said request and the specimen to the PNP Regional
Crime Laboratory on the same day. He personally turned over the specimen
marked "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" to the receiving clerk as evidenced by
the stamp receipt on the said request bearing the time and date received as
"10:25 PM July 12, 2006."34
and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any
improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the
police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.38 No
such evidence was presented by appellant in this case. The CA even quoted in
part the decision of the RTC which highlighted the irreconcilable
inconsistencies in the testimonies of defense witnesses on what transpired
during the buy-bust operation.
The fourth link seeks to establish that the specimen submitted for laboratory
examination is the one presented in court. Forensic Chemical Officer Pol. Insp.
Apostol, Jr. testified that the transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance which was marked "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006", was
given to him by the receiving clerk. Within twenty-four hours, he conducted the
chemical analysis by taking a representative sample from the specimen, even
explaining in detail the process of testing the specimen for shabu. He identified
the specimen with markings "EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" presented as
evidence in court (Exhibit "J") as the same specimen he examined and which he
found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.1wphi1
Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment
to death and fine, ranging fromP500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy
regardless of the quantity and purity involved. Hence, the RTC, as affirmed by
the CA, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of P1,000,000.00.
The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and

the receiving clerk of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory is not a crucial point
against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the
prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as
to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to
present as witnesses.35 Further, there is nothing in R.A. No. 9165 or in its
implementing rules, which requires each and every one who came into contact
with the seized drugs to testify in court. "As long as the chain of custody of the
seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken and the prosecution
did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each
and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness
stand."36
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated

November 11, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR. CR-H.C. No. 03483 is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.
With the unbroken chain of custody duly established by the prosecution

evidence, the CA did not err in giving the same full credence in contrast to the
denial by appellant who failed to substantiate his allegation of frame-up and
extortion. Frame-up, like alibi, is generally viewed with caution by the Court
because it is easy to contrive and difficult to disprove. It is a common and
standard line of defense in prosecutions of violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act.37 To substantiate such defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing

SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 202709
July 3, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE,

vs.
ROMEO ONIZA Y ONG AND MERCY ONIZA Y
CABARLE, APPELLANTS.
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the need to absolve the accused of the charges against them
because of the police officers outright failure without any justification to abide
by the law governing the conduct of seizure operations involving dangerous
drugs.
The Facts and the Case
On June 21, 2004 the Public Prosecutors Office of Rizal filed separate charges
of possession of dangerous drugs1 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Rizal, Branch 2, against the accused spouses Romeo in Criminal Case 7598 and
Mercy Oniza in Criminal Case 7599. The prosecution further charged the
spouses with selling dangerous drugs in Criminal Case 7600, all allegedly in
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
The prosecutions version is that at about 9:30 p.m. on June 16, 2004, PO1
Reynaldo M. Albarico, PO1 Fortunato P. Jiro III, and PO1 Jose Gordon
Antonio of the Rodriguez Police Station in Rizal received information from a
police asset that accused Mercy Oniza was selling dangerous drugs at Phase 1D Kasiglahan Village, Barangay San Jose.2 They immediately formed a team to
conduct a buy-bust operation. After coordinating its action with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency, the police team proceeded to Kasiglahan Village on
board an owner-type jeep. They brought with them two pieces of premarked P100 bills.3
On arrival at the place, the team members positioned themselves at about 15 to
20 meters from where they spotted Mercy Oniza and a male companion, later
identified as her accused husband Romeo Oniza. The police informant
approached Mercy and initiated the purchase. 4 He handed the two marked P100
bills to her which she in turn gave to Romeo.5 After pocketing the money, the
latter took out a plastic sachet of white crystalline substance from his pocket
and gave it to the informant. The latter then scratched his head as a signal for
the police officers to make an arrest.6
The police officers came out of concealment to arrest Mercy and Romeo.7 On
seeing the police officers, however, the two quickly ran into their house, joined
by Valentino Cabarle (separately charged) who had earlier stood nearby, and
locked the door behind them. The officers rammed the door open to get in. They
apprehended Mercy, Romeo, and Valentino.8 Officer Jiro recovered four heatsealed plastic sachets believed to contain shabu from Mercy. Officer Albarico
retrieved two marked P100 bills and a similar plastic sachet from Romeo.
Officer Antonio seized an identical sachet from Valentino.9
The police officers brought their three captives to the police station for
investigation and booking. Officer Jiro marked all the items the police seized
and had these brought to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory for examination.10 After forensic chemical analysis, the contents of
the sachets proved to be shabu.11
The prosecution and the defense stipulated that the specimens that PO1 Annalee
R. Forro, a PNP forensic chemical officer, examined were methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu). They further stipulated, however, that Officer Forro
"could not testify on the source and origin of the subject specimens that she had
examined."12 As a result, PO1 Forro did not testify and only her report was
adduced by the prosecution as evidence.
The evidence for the accused shows, on the other hand, that at around 9:30 p.m.
on June 16, 2004, the spouses Mercy and Romeo were asleep at their home
when Mercy was suddenly awakened by the voice of Belen Morales calling on
her from outside the house. As Mercy peeped through the window, Belen told
her that the police had arrested and mauled Mercys brother, Valentino. Mercy
hurriedly ran out of the house to find out what had happened to her brother.13
When Mercy got to where Valentino was, she saw some police officers forcibly
getting him into an owner-type jeep while Zenaida Cabarle, Mercy and
Valentinos mother, kept pulling him out of the owner-type jeep. When Mercy
approached Valentino, the police officers told her to accompany him to the
police station. This prompted her to shout for her husbands help.14
Meanwhile, when Romeo had awakened, he came out of the house, and saw
two police officers in black jackets, Albarico and Antonio, who approached
him. They seized and shoved him into the owner-type jeep to join Mercy and
Valentino. Romeo noticed that Valentino was grimacing in pain, having been
beaten up by the police.15
At the police station, the police officers asked their three captives to
produce P30,000.00 in exchange for their release.16 Officer Antonio took out
something from his pocket, showed it to them, and told them that he would use
it to press charges against them. Afterwards, PO1 Antonio took Mercy to the
kitchen room and hit her head with two pieces of pot covers ("pinompyang").17
Nearly after five years of trial or on April 2, 2009 the RTC rendered a
decision18 that found Romeo and Mercy guilty of possession of dangerous drugs
in Criminal Cases 7598 and 7599, respectively, and imposed on them both the
penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine
of P300,000.00. Further, the trial court found them guilty of selling dangerous
drugs in Criminal Case 7600 and imposed on them both the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The trial court, however, acquitted
Valentino of the separate charge of possession of dangerous drugs filed against
him in Criminal Case 7597.
On appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04301, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the
judgments of conviction against Romeo and Mercy, hence, the present appeal to
this Court.
Issue Presented
The issue presented in this case is whether or not the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt that Romeo and Mercy were in possession of and were selling
dangerous drugs when the team of police officers arrested them on June 16,
2004.
Ruling of the Court
The law prescribes certain procedures in keeping custody and disposition of
seized dangerous drugs like the shabu that the police supposedly confiscated
from Romeo and Mercy on June 16, 2004. Section 21 of Republic Act (R.A.)
9165 reads:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
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:
(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 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; x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Compliance with the above, especially the required physical inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, the media, and
responsible government functionaries, would be clear evidence that the police
had carried out a legitimate buy-bust operation. Here, the prosecution was
unable to adduce such evidence, indicating that the police officers did not at all
comply with prescribed procedures. Worse, they offered no excuse or
explanation at the hearing of the case for their blatant omission of what the law
required of them.
Apart from the above, the prosecution carried the burden of establishing the
chain of custody of the dangerous drugs that the police allegedly seized from
the accused on the night of June 16, 2004. It should establish the following links
in that chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court.19
Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first
required linkimmediate seizure and marking of the seized items in the
presence of the accused and others20namely, that (a) there must be justifiable
grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
Pros. Gonzales : And thereafter, what happened to the evidence gathered, Mr.
Witness?
PO1 Albarico : PO1 Jiro marked the evidence, sir.
xxxx
Pros. Gonzales : Mr. Witness, those substance[s] that were marked by PO1 Jiro,
what happened to them after the markings?
PO1 Albarico : After marking the pieces of evidence, he turned them over to the
Desk Officer and prepared a request for examination and those were brought to
Camp Crame for examination, sir.
xxxx
Here, the prosecutions own evidence as recited by the CA and the RTC is that
the police officers did not make a physical inventory of the seized drugs nor did
they take a picture of the same in the presence of the accused, someone in the
media, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and any elected public
official.
Pros. Gonzales : If you know, what was the result of the request for
examination?
All that Officer Albarico could say is that his companion, Officer Jiro, marked
the plastic sachets with the initials of the accused already at the police station
and then turned over the same to the desk officer who prepared the Request for
Laboratory Examination.21 Thus:
Yet, the police officers did not bother to offer any sort of reason or justification
for their failure to make an inventory and take pictures of the drugs immediately
after their seizure in the presence of the accused and the other persons
designated by the law. Both the RTC and the CA misapprehended the
significance of such omission. It is imperative for the prosecution to establish a
justifiable cause for non-compliance with the procedural requirements set by
law.22 The procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are not merely empty
formalitiesthese are safeguards against abuse,23 the most notorious of which
is its use as a tool for extortion.24
Pros. Gonzales : And after that, what, if any, did you do next?
PO1 Albarico : After arresting them, we brought them to our police station, sir.
Pros. Gonzales : And at the station, Mr. Witness, what happened to the items
that you said was [sic] recovered from the possession of accused Romeo?
PO1 Albarico : We have the pieces of evidence blottered, sir.
PO1 Albarico : As far as we know, it is positive for methamphetamine

hydrochloride, sir.
And what is the prosecutions evidence that the substances, which the police
chemist examined and found to be shabu, were the same substances that the
police officers allegedly seized from Romeo and Mercy? No such evidence
exists. As pointed out above, the prosecution stipulated with the accused that
the police chemist "could not testify on the source and origin of the subject
specimens that she had examined." No police officer testified out of personal
knowledge that the substances given to the police chemist and examined by her
were the very same substances seized from the accused.1wphi1
In regard to the required presence of representatives from the DOJ and the
media and an elective official, the prosecution also did not bother to offer any
justification, even a hollow one, for failing to comply with such requirement.
What is more, the police officers could have easily coordinated with any elected
barangay official in the conduct of the police operation in the locality.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the February 23, 2012
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04301, which affirmed
the April 2, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Cases 7598,
7599, and 7600 and, accordingly, ACQUITS the accused-appellants Romeo
Oniza y Ong and Mercy Oniza y Cabarle of the charges against them in those
cases on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The National Police Commission is DIRECTED to INVESTIGATE PO1
Reynaldo M. Albarico, PO1 Fortunato P. Jiro III and PO1 Jose Gordon Antonio
for the possible filing of appropriate charges, if warranted.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to immediately
RELEASE both the above accused-appellants from custody unless they are
detained for some other lawful cause.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECONO DIVISION
G.R. No. 195528
July 24, 2013

vs.
JOSE CLARA y BUHAIN, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal filed by herein accused Joel Clara y Buhain (Joel) from the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the decision of conviction
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165.2
The factual rendition of the prosecution follows:
Prosecution witness P03 Leonardo R. Ramos (P03 Ramos) narrated that he
acted as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation conducted by their office, the
District Anti-Illegal Drug Special Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of Quezon City
on 12 September 2005.3 He recalled that on or about 4:00 oclock in afternoon
of the said date, a male informant came to their office with the information that
a person named "Ningning" was selling drugs at 22-C Salvador Drive,
Balonbato, Quezon City.4 Police team leader SPO2 Dante D. Nagera (SPO2
Nagera) endorsed the matter to their Chief of Office Col. Gerardo B. Ratuita
(Col. Ratuita) for the conduct of a buy-bust operation.5 A buy-bust group was
created consisting of SPO2 Nagera, PO1 Peggy Lynne V. Vargas (PO1 Vargas),
PO1 Teresita B. Reyes (PO1 Reyes), PO1 Alexander A. Jimenez (PO1 Jimenez)
and PO3 Ramos who was designated as the poseur-buyer.6 During the briefing,
it was agreed upon that P200.00-worth of shabu would be bought from
"Ningning" by PO3 Ramos. Before leaving for their target, PO1 Reyes prepared
a Pre-Operation Report and forwarded it to the Tactical Operation
Communication of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for

coordination.7 At 8:00 oclock in the evening, the team proceeded to the area on
board three vehicles: Nissan Sentra, Toyota Corolla and owner-type jeep.8 Upon
their arrival at 9:35 oclock in the evening, PO3 Ramos and the informant
knocked on the door of the house while the rest of the team positioned
themselves ten meters away.9The informant identified "Gigi" as the accused
Joel, Ningnings uncle.10 Initiating a conversation, the informant introduced to
Joel PO3 Ramos as a buyer of P200.00-peso worth of illegal drug. When PO3
Ramos asked for Ningning, Joel answered that she was upstairs. Joel asked for
payment and PO3 Ramos handed the P200 marked money.11 Joel went upstairs
and called Ningning. Ningning opened the door and handed Joel a small plastic
sachet of shabu which in turn was handed to PO3 Ramos.12
Thereafter, PO3 Ramos touched his head as a pre-arranged signal to prompt the
back-up police officers of the consummation of the illegal sale. Immediately,
the rest of the team rushed to the place to arrest Joel.13 Joel tried to close the
door to prevent the police officers from entering the house but PO3 Ramos was
able to grab him. SPO2 Nagera quickly went upstairs to arrest Ningning but the
latter was able to escape apprehension.14 PO3 Ramos immediately frisked Joel
inside the house but failed to recover anything from him; the marked money
was given to Ningning when Joel went upstairs to get the plastic sachet.15
Joel was brought to the police station and was informed by PO1 Jimenez of his
constitutional rights as a consequence of his arrest.16 Afterwards, the small
plastic sachet recovered was marked by PO1 Jimenez inside the station and an
inventory receipt was prepared.17 PO3 Ramos clarified that the plastic sachet
was in the possession of PO1 Jimenez from the place of arrest until arrival at the
police station. PO3 Ramos added that PO1 Jimenez was present at the time of
arrest which explained his possession of the plastic sachet containing shabu.18
Inside the courtroom, PO3 Ramos identified Joel as the one involved in the
illegal transaction.19 He also identified the small plastic sachet of shabu as the
subject of the illegal transaction through the marking "LRR" he placed on
it.20 He testified that he brought the plastic sachet containing the specimen to
the crime laboratory for examination21 where it was tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, as certified by the examining Forensic
Chemist Engr. Leonard M. Jabonillo (Forensic Chemist Jabonillo) of Central
Police District Crime Laboratory in his Chemistry Report.22
SPO2 Nagera was also called to the witness stand to present his version of the
events. However, some inconsistencies surfaced during his examination at the
witness stand.
When asked about the gender of the informant who came to their office, he
answered that the informant was a female, contradicting the statement of PO3
Ramos.23 He also differed from the statement of PO3 Ramos when he testified
that only two modes of transportation, instead of three, were used by the buybust team in proceeding to the target area, one Nissan Maxima and one ownertype jeep.24 He also had difficulty in identifying the accused inside the court
room when he was asked upon by the prosecutor to do so.25
Further contradiction was made when SPO2 Nagera narrated that PO3 Ramos
was the one holding the plastic sachet before it was turned over to PO1 Jimenez
for investigation.26 He also admitted in his cross examination that he never saw
Ningning during the entire buy-bust operation.27 Finally, when asked about on
who placed the initial "LRR" on the plastic sachet, he positively identified that
it was the investigator who put the same.28
PO1 Jimenez was also presented in court as a prosecution witness to give details
of the buy-bust operation. His version, however, also differed from the versions
presented by PO3 Ramos and SPO2 Nagera. He testified that the plastic sachet
confiscated was already marked by the apprehending officers when it was
turned over to him for investigation, a contradiction of the statements of both
PO3 Ramos and SPO2 Nagera that it was him who marked the plastic sachet
with the initial "LRR."29 He positively identified that he saw the item being
marked by the apprehending officers in their office.30
The defense interposed denial.
Accused Joel denied any involvement in the buy-bust operation. He recalled
that he was inside his house sleeping between 9:00 to 10:00 oclock in the
evening of 12 September 2005 when five uniformed police officers entered his
house.31 They got hold of his arm and frisked him but failed to recover
anything.32 The police officers did not inform him of the reason for his arrest;
neither did they recite his constitutional rights. Afterwards, he was made to ride
an owner type vehicle and was taken to the police station where he was only
asked for his name.33 He denied having sold drugs and having seen the marked
money and plastic sachet containing shabu.34
On cross examination, Joel was also inconsistent in portions of his testimony.
He testified that all of his siblings were in the province and his only companions
in the house at the time of the arrest were his nephew and niece.35However,
when asked why the door was still open at around 10:00 oclock in the evening,
he replied that he was waiting for his sister.36 He also contradicted his earlier
statement that he was sleeping with his nephew and niece downstairs when in
his cross examination he said that his niece was staying on the second floor of
the house at the time of the arrival of the police officers.37
Joel was eventually charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs punishable
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 before the Prosecutors Office of
Quezon City. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
Criminal Case No. 05-136719
That on or about the 12th day of September, 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines,
the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport
or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully and unlawfully
sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said
transaction, ZERO POINT ZERO SEVEN (0.07) gram of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.38
When arraigned, Joel pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.39
During pre-trial, it was agreed upon by both parties that Forensic Chemist
Jabonillo had no personal knowledge as to how the plastic sachet containing
specimen positive for illegal drug came to of police officers possession. The
forensic chemist merely examined the specimen and found it to be positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. As a consequence of these stipulations, his
testimony was dispensed with by the court.40
Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court on 21 March 2007 found the accused guilty of the offense
charged. The dispositive portion of the decision41 reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered finding the accused JOEL CLARA Y

BUHAIN GUILTY beyond reasonable of the crime in violation of Sec. 5 of
R.A. 9165 as charged (for drug pushing) and he is sentenced to suffer the
prescribed jail term of Life Imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The shabu weighing 0.07 gram involved in this case is ordered transmitted to
the PDEA thru DDB for disposal in accordance with R.A. 9165.42
The trial court ruled that Joel directly dealt with the poseur buyer and
participated in all the stages of the illegal sale. It found conspiracy between Joel
and Ningning. It pointed out that Ningning was able to escape the police
dragnet while Joel was being arrested because of her familiarity as a drug
operator with police operations.
The police operation and its coordination with the operatives of the PDEA
would be recognized by the appellate court as legally performed.43 On the
contrary the prosecutions scenario that the police officers entered Joels
residence and hauled him out with no reason at all was found to be
improbable.44
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In affirming the ruling of the trial court, the appellate court ruled that all the
elements of an illegal sale of dangerous drugs were present.45 First, Joel, as the
seller of illegal drug, was positively identified by the poseur buyer and the
police officers; Second, the confiscated white crystalline substance which was
found by the PNP crime laboratory as positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride which is a dangerous drug was presented during trial; and Lastly,
the illegal sale was for a consideration of P200.00 given by PO3 Ramos as
poseur buyer. The appellate court further held that the non-presentation of the
marked money was not fatal since the prosecution witnesses were able to
establish that the P200.00 bill used to purchase the illegal drug was in the
possession of Ningning who was able to evade arrest.46
In his Brief, the accused-appellant contested his conviction due to the

inconsistencies in the prosecutions presentation of a supposed buy-bust
operation, coupled with its failure to establish with certainty the chain of
custody of evidence. He also argued against the presumption of regularity of
performance of duties. Finally, to substantiate his innocence, he pointed out that
he was not even the target person in the PDEA Coordination Report and denied
any conspiracy and involvement with such target person named "Ningning."47
Inspite of the imperfect narration of events by the accused Joel, we are
constrained to render a judgment of acquittal due to the lapses of the
prosecution that led to its failure to discharge the burden of proof beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.
In order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
It is basic in criminal prosecutions that an accused is presumed innocent of the
charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The
prosecution has the burden to overcome such presumption of innocence by
presenting the quantum of evidence required.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as,
excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only
is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an
unprejudiced mind.48 It must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the
weakness of the defense. If the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of
evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own
behalf, in which case, the presumption prevails and the accused should
necessarily be acquitted.49
In this case, the prosecution failed to overcome such presumption when it
presented inconsistent versions of an illegal sale.
Our Ruling
After a careful review of the evidence, we resolve to reverse the ruling of
conviction and render a judgment of acquittal in favor of the accused.
PO3 Ramos identified Joel as the seller who sold to him a small plastic sachet
containing shabu in exchange of two hundred pesos. We quote the relevant
portions:
FISCAL (to witness)
Q: After giving that money to Gigi, what happened after that?
Q: What happened there?
A: He called Ningning from up stair (sic).
A: When we reached the house sir, we knocked at the door and alias Gigi open
(sic) it.
Q: Did Ningning go to the place where you were talking with Gigi at that time?
A: No sir, she just open (sic) the door and handed the sachet of shabu.
xxxx
xxxx
Q: What was the conversation with you during that time?
Q: When he received that from Ningning at that time, what did you do?
A: The informant first introduced me to Gigi that I will be the one to buy shabu.
A: After Gigi got it he gave it to me, sir.
Q: What was the answer of Gigi at that time?
A: He asked how much.
Q: Can you describe that item you received from Gigi that came from Ningning
at that time?
Q: What was your answer?
A: Yes sir.
A: I said dos.
Q: Can you describe?
Q: After informing him that you intend to buy dos of illegal drug, what
happened?
A: Yes sir, just a small plastic sachet.50
A: I first asked where is Ningning.
PO3 Ramos initially testified that he placed his marking on the small plastic
sachet he was able to buy from Joel:
Q: What was the answer of Gigi?
Q: If that small plastic sachet is shown to you can you indentify the specimen?
A: He said that she was upstairs.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What happened after that?
Q: Why?
A: He asked for my money, sir.
A: Because I placed my marking.
Q: Did you give the P200.00.
Q: What marking did you place?
A: Yes sir, I gave the money.
A: LRR.
Q: Showing to you this transparent plastic sachet containing illegal drug, what
can you say about that, what is the relation of that transparent plastic sachet to
the plastic sachet you have just mentioned?
Q: You said that the investigator placed the marking in the transparent plastic
sachet and likewise he was the one who made the inventory receipt. In what
particular place that he prepared this particular document?
A: That is the sachet I was able to buy, sir.
A: At the area, sir.
Q: Where is the marking?
Q: What do you mean by area?
A: It was on top of the plastic sachet.51 (Emphasis supplied)
A: In front of the house of the accused, sir.
However, he would later present a new version on who marked the plastic
sachet:
Q: What is the name of that investigator again?

A: Alexander Jimenez, sir.54 (Emphasis supplied)
Q: Now, going [back] to the police station, other than searching, what other
matters were taken during the arrest?
A: The evidence that I was able to get from Ningning and it was the investigator
who marked it.
The testimony of PO3 Ramos, which apparently was given as proof of all the
elements that constitute an illegal sale of drug is however, inconsistent on
material points from the recollection of events of PO3 Ramos, SPO2 Nagera
and PO1 Jimenez regarding the marking, handling and turnover of the plastic
sachet containing the dangerous drug of shabu.
Q: Other than putting the initial on the transparent plastic sachet immediately
after the arrest Mr. Witness, what was the SOP in a buy-bust operation, after
taking or receiving the item from the accused during the arrest?
SPO2 Nagera narrated that it was PO1 Jimenez who marked the plastic sachet
after it was handed by PO3 Ramos:
A: We made the inventory receipt, sir.52 (Emphasis supplied)
Q: What did the investigator do to shabu, Mr. Witness?
xxxx
Q: x x x. You said that it was the investigator who made the marking in the
transparent plastic sachet, where were you when the marking was placed on it?
A: I was in front of the investigator.
A: They placed their initial and prepared request for examination address to the
Crime Laboratory sir.55 (Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
Q: Where was PO3 Ramos when that plastic sachet, when the police
investigator put the initial, Mr. Witness?
Q: What was the marking placed?

A: We were there sir.56 (Emphasis supplied)
A: LRR.53 (Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
However, PO1 Jimenez later testified that it was PO3 Ramos who marked the
plastic sachet in their office.
Q: Being the investigator you saw the item confiscated?
A: Ramos, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What happened next, Mr. Witness?
Q: Was it already marked when it was received by you?
A: It was turn (sic) over to the police investigator, sir.59 (Emphasis supplied)
A: It was already marked by the apprehending officers.
The clear inconsistency in the presentation of facts is fatal. It creates doubts

whether the transaction really occurred or not. Though Joels denial as a defense
is weak, such cannot relieve the prosecution the burden of presenting proof
beyond reasonable doubt that an illegal transaction actually took place.60
Q: Did you see it marked by the apprehending officer?

A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where?
A: In our office.57 (Emphasis supplied)
Contradictory statements were further made as to who between PO3 Ramos and
PO1 Jimenez held the shabu from the time of the arrest until arrival at the police
station. PO3 Ramos pointed to PO1 Jimenez in his direct examination:
Q: You said immediately after arresting and searching the accused in this case
you said that you brought the accused to the police station, who was in
possession of the transparent plastic sachet from where you received that
transparent plastic sachet in exchange to P200.00 going to the police station Mr.
Witness?
A: The investigator, sir.
Q: You mean to say that investigator was present when the accused was arrested
in this case?
A: Yes sir, he was with us.58 (Emphasis supplied)
Inconsistencies of the prosecution witnesses referring to the events that

transpired in the buy-bust operation can overturn the judgment of conviction.
As held in Zaragga v. People,61 material inconsistencies with regard to when
and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on
the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti.
Prosecutions failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu led to the
acquittal of the accused in that case.62
Inconsistencies and discrepancies referring to minor details and not upon the
basic aspect of the crime do not diminish the witnesses credibility. If the cited
inconsistency has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, it does not stand
as a ground to reverse a conviction.63 However, in this case, the material
inconsistencies are furthered by inconsistencies of the police officers on minor
details. Referring back to the narration of circumstances of the buy-bust
operation, SPO2 Nagera was asked about the gender of the informant who went
to their office to report about the illegal activities committed by
Ningning.1wphi1 He readily answered that the informant was a female.64 PO3
Ramos in turn, when asked to describe what happened in the afternoon before
the buy-bust operation, testified that a male informant came to their office to
report about a person selling illegal drugs.65
These conflicting statements of the prosecution effectively broke the chain of
custody of evidence of the sale of dangerous drug.
However, SPO2 Nagera pointed to PO3 Ramos as the one in possession:

Q: What about the shabu, who was holding it in going to the police station, Mr.
Witness?
Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
9165 provides for the procedure to be observed in preserving the integrity of
chain of custody:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered

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 so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for 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 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 copy thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory and
the photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at least 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 noncompliance 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/officer, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
"Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court and
finally for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item
shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary
custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody
were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the
final disposition.66
To establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, the prosecution must
establish the following links, namely: First, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; Third, the turnover by the investigating

officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by
the forensic chemist to the court.67.
The "objective test" in determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses
regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation provides that it is the duty of the
prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust operation
from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to
purchase, the promise or payment of the consideration, until the consummation
of the sale by the delivery of the illegal subject of sale.68 The manner by which
the initial contact was made, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the
buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict
scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced
to commit an offense.69
In view of these guiding principles, we rule that the prosecution failed to
present a clear picture on how the police officers seized and marked the illegal
drug recovered by the apprehending officer and how the specimen was turned
over by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer.
As to the first link of marking, the three police officers failed to agree on who
among them marked the plastic sachet, which is highly improbable if they really
had a clear grasp on what really transpired on the day of operation.
PO3 Ramos testified that he placed his marking on the small plastic sachet but
recanted his previous statement at the latter part of the examination and pointed
out that it was the investigator PO1 Jimenez who put the marking in front of
him at the area of arrest.70 SPO2 Nagera in his testimony confirmed that it was
PO1 Jimenez who put marking on the plastic sachet.71 However, PO1 Jimenez
in his testimony clarified that the item confiscated were already marked by the
apprehending officers when it was turned over to him in their office.72
Likewise, they cannot seem to agree on the second link on who among them
held the item confiscated from the time of arrest and confiscation until it was
turned over to the investigator and the place where it was turned over.
PO3 Ramos positively pointed that it was PO1 Jimenez who took possession of
the item from the time of the arrest until arrival at the police station.73 However,
when SPO2 Nagera was asked, he pointed out that it was PO3 Ramos who held
the item from the time of the arrest until they reached the police where it was
turned over to Jimenez for investigation.74
In Malillin v. People,75 it was explained that the chain of custody rule includes
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked
up to the time it was offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who
touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where
it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in
which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next
link in the chain.76
rule on the regularity of their performance of duties. We at all times harmonize

the interest of the accused alongside the interest of the State.
Inconsistencies committed by the police officers amounting to procedural lapses
in observing the chain of custody of evidence requirement effectively negated
this presumption. Their inaccurate recall of events amounted to irregularities
that affected the presumption and tilted the evidence in favor of the accused.
The absence of improper motive tends to sustain inexistence but does not
absolutely rule out false charges.
In case of conflict between the presumption of regularity of police officers and
the presumption of innocence of the accused, we rule that the latter must prevail
as the law imposes upon the prosecution the highest degree of proof of evidence
to sustain conviction.79
The inconsistent statements of the police officers generated doubt on whether

the identity of the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence
subjected to marking and inventory then given to the Jimenez for investigation
and eventually submitted by PO3 Ramos for examination by the forensic
chemist.
Due to foregoing flagrant inconsistencies in the testimonies of police officers

which directly constitute the recollection of events of buy-bust together and
failure of observance of chain of custody of evidence which effectively broke
the links to sustain conviction, we rule for the acquittal of the accused.
The prosecution cannot rely on the saving clause provided under Section 21(a)
of the IRR that non-compliance with the legal requirements shall not render
void and invalid seizures of and custody over said items. This saving clause is
applicable only if prosecution was able to prove the twin conditions of (a)
existence of justifiable grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the items.77 The procedural lapses in this case put to doubt
the integrity of the items presented in court.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 4 August 2010 Decision of the

Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02714 affirming the judgment of
conviction dated 21 March 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103 of
Quezon City is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant JOSE
CLARA y BUHAIN is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered immediately released
from detention unless his continued confinement is warranted for some other
cause or ground.
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, is adamant in its
argument that there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by
police officers conducting buy-bust operation.
SO ORDERED.
We agree but with qualification.

In numerous cases, we were inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in
the performance of duty of public officers.78 However, this is not a hard-andfast rule. It does not mean that we straight away and without a blink of the eye

Legal Medicine - Dangerous Drugs Cases

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Legal Medicine - Dangerous Drugs Cases

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. Nos. 78813-14 November 8, 1993

with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, or by

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 1 of 46

the course leading to a medical degree, did, then and there,

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 2 of 46

Acting on the complaint filed before the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit

Assorted drugs, such as dalmane, valium and mogadon, as well as prescription

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 3 of 46

The Professional Regulation Commission certified that appellant is not among

5. When the mother, Agustina, came into the room of the

3. In the two short waking moments of the victim she noticed

In his first assignment of error, appellant questions the credibility of the

4. The accused, then 21 years of age was in the prime of youth,

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 4 of 46

execution of these affidavits. When they were presented and offered as

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 5 of 46

The evidence is overwhelming that appellant actually treated and diagnosed

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 6 of 46

Republic of the Philippines

August 31, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

In coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 7 of 46

any reasonable doubt and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 8 of 46

The Court finds the arguments of the accused bereft of merit.

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 9 of 46

Q x x x I am showing you two sachets marked as Exhibit "A" ECA. 04/14/05

Q How about this signature, whose signature would that be?

For purposes of identification, may we have the two sachets marked as BB be

A buy bust, sir.

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 10 of 46

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 11 of 46

Republic of the Philippines

August 15, 2012

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

"JAO 3" - 0.02 gram

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 12 of 46

"JAO 9" - 0.02 gram

On April 8, 2006, PO1 Mendoza x x x received a telephone call from an

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 13 of 46

We sustain the conviction of appellant.

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 14 of 46

The testimony, in turn, is well-supported by a copy of the Request for

4. That immediately thereafter, together with the confiscated pieces of evidence

SOUTHERN POLICE DISTRICT OFFICE

CONTROL NO. 1204-06

CASE NO. D-284-0624 (Emphasis supplied)

T/D RECEIVED: 11:55 PM 8 APRIL 06

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 15 of 46

speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such

A: Yes, [Y]our Honor.

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 16 of 46

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 17 of 46

Republic of the Philippines

May 21, 2004

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 18 of 46

someone hysterically shouting, "Mang Domeng!"12 Elizabeth sensed that the

General and Extragenital:

Legal Medicine: On Dangerous Drugs | Page 19 of 46

from which no secretions could be pressed out. Abdomen is

According to the appellant, he never saw Richelle during the period of