Co vs. Muoz, Jr.

711 SCRA 508

December 04, 2013
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:

Munoz, a contractor, was charged and arrested for perjury. Suspecting that Co, a
wealthy businessman, was behind the filing of suit, Munoz made the following statements:
(a) Co influenced the Office of the City Prosecutor of Legaspi City to expedite the issuance of
warrant of arrest against Muoz in connection with the perjury case;
(b) Co manipulated the results of the government bidding involving the Masarawag-San
Francisco dredging project, and;
(c) Co received P2,000,000.00 from Muoz on the condition that Co will sub-contract the project
to Muoz, which condition Co did not comply with.
Co then filed his complaint-affidavit which led to the filing of three criminal information for
libel before the RTC.
In defense, Muoz countered that he revealed the anomalous government bidding as a
call of public duty. In fact, he filed cases against Co before the Ombudsman involving the
anomalous dredging project. Although the Ombudsman dismissed the cases, Muoz claimed
that the dismissal did not disprove the truth of his statements. He further argued that Co is a
public figure considering his participation in government projects and his prominence in the
business circles. He also emphasized that the imputations dealt with matters of public interest
and are, thus, privileged. Applying the rules on privileged communication to libel suits, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the existence of actual malice, which, Muoz claimed, it
failed to do.
Issue:
Whether a conviction in libel involving privileged communication, the prosecution must establish
that the libelous statements were made or published with actual malice or malice in fact?
Held:
Yes. Jurisprudence supplements the enumeration in Article 354 of the RPC. In Borjal v. Court of
Appeals, 301 SCRA 1 (1999), we held that in view of the constitutional right on the freedoms of
speech and of the press, fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged. In
Guingguing v. Court of Appeals, 471 SCRA 196 (2005), we ruled that the remarks directed
against a public figure are likewise privileged. In order to justify a conviction in libel involving
privileged communication, the prosecution must establish that the libelous statements were
made or published with actual malice or malice in fact the knowledge that the statement is
false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. In other words, our rulings in
Borjal and Guingguing show that privileged communication has the effect of destroying the
presumption of malice or malice in law and consequently requiring the prosecution to prove the
existence of malice in fact.

People vs. Montevirgen

712 SCRA 459
December 11, 2013
Nigel R. Garcia

Facts:
The Makati City Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force received
a report from a confidential informant that appellant was selling shabu in Malvar Street,
Barangay South Cembo, Makati City. PO3 Ruiz was designated as poseur-buyer and was
provided with two 100-peso bills marked money. PO1 Marmonejo, on the other hand,
coordinated the operation with the Philippine Drug enforcement Agency (PDEA), which issued a
Certificate of Coordination. The buy-bust team then proceeded to the subject area but could not
locate appellant. The next day, the buy-bust team returned to Malvar Street and found appellant
talking to three men. After these men departed, PO3 Ruiz, accompanied by the confidential
informant, approached appellant. The confidential informant introduced PO3 Ruiz to appellant
and told him that PO3 Ruiz wanted to buy shabu. Appellant asked PO3 Ruiz how much he
wanted to buy and he replied, P200.00. Appellant pulled out from his pocket three plastic
sachets containing white crystalline substance and told PO3 Ruiz to choose one. He complied
and gave the marked money to appellant as payment. Appellant pocketed the remaining plastic
sachets together with the marked money. PO3 Ruiz then took off his cap the pre-arranged
signal that the transaction had been consummated. The other buy-bust team members then
rushed to the scene to assist PO3 Ruiz in apprehending appellant. The two other plastic
sachets and marked money were recovered from appellant after PO3 Ruiz ordered him to
empty his pockets.
In appellant defense, he was in his house with his wife and child when he was roused
from sleep by a man armed with a gun. Several other armed men entered his house. He was
told that a buy-bust operation was being conducted. They searched his house then appellant
was made to board a vehicle where he was showed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance that he believed to be shabu. He struggled to free himself and denied ownership
thereof but his actions were futile. He was taken to Barangay Olympia, Makati City, where he
was detained for 30 minutes, then brought to the crime laboratory for drug testing.
Issue:
What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti?
Held:
In every prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu, under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165,
the following elements must be proved: (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. x x x
What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug in evidence. On the other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same law, the following
elements must concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified

as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely
and consciously possessed the drug.
People vs. Castillo
710 SCRA 761
November 27, 2013
Facts:
On cross-examination, PO2 Santos was firm in saying that he gave the buy bust money
to Marissa Castillo after the latter had handed the illegal substance to him. Back-up operative
PO1 Grace Chavez confirmed the testimony given by her colleague PO2 Santos. She said that
she was part of the buy bust operation conducted by the police operatives headed by PSI
Pascual against the accused Marissa Castillo.
PO1 Chavez categorically said that she saw PO2 Santos hold the left hand of Marissa
Castillo. Confiscated by PO2 Santos from Marissa Castillo were two plastic sachets of shabu
and the buy bust money. This was in addition to the plastic sachet that was sold by PO2 Santos
to the accused Marissa. She also said that the transaction took place on an alley near the house
of the accused about 5 meters away from the main road.
Marinel Castillo, the daughter of the accused, said that while she was in their house, she
heard someone trying to open their door. When she peeped through the window she saw about
nine (9) men outside who entered their house. Once inside the men started searching the
house. Marinel asked the men to whom she would later know as police officers, why they
entered their house but the police officers just ordered her to be quiet and to just sit down. After
the police had searched the house, a policeman approached her and frisked her. One of the
police officers whom she identified as PO2 Santos asked Marinel the whereabouts of her
mother. After she told him her whereabouts, the police officers left and returned after a while
with her mother. Later they were brought to the police station. While the other police officers
talking to accused, Marinel was given 20 pesos as her fare in going home. Marinel admitted that
she did not know what happened from the time PO2 Santos left their house to look for her
mother up to the time PO2 Santos returned with her mother
Issue:
Is the testimony of PO2 Santos and PO1 Chavez credible and worthy of belief not only
by the trial court but also by the appellate court?
Held:
Yes. The successful prosecution of drug cases is dependent, in large part, to the
credibility of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. The testimony of PO2
Santos and PO1 Chavez survived the scrutiny of both the trial court judge and the defense
counsel and was adjudged to be credible and worthy of belief not only by the trial court but also
by the appellate court. This is significant considering that we have stated in jurisprudence that
the successful prosecution of drug cases is dependent, in large part, to the credibility of the
police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. In this case, we find no reason to
question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses considering that, time and again, we have
held that the determination of the credibility of witnesses by the trial court, when affirmed by the

appellate court, is accorded full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive
effect.

Posadas vs. Sandiganbayan

710 SCRA 641
November 27, 2013
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:
The petitioners asked the high court to overturn its July 17 ruling that upheld a Sandiganbayan
decision in 2005 that found them guilty of violating Republic Act 3019, or the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, and Republic Act 6713, the Code of Ethics for Government Officials and
Employees.
It held that Posadas had assigned vice chancellor Dayco as chancellor in an officer-in-charge
capacity when he traveled to China in 1995.
When Posadas returned, Dayco still sitting as an OIC chancellor appointed Posadas as
project director and consultant of Technology Management Center, which offers a technology
management graduate course on policy analysis and formulation for government back in 1995.
This entitled Posadas to multiple compensation that included a P30, 000 honoraria and P100,
000 consultancy fee.
Later the Commission on Audit (COA) Resident Auditor issued a Notice of Suspension of
payments made to UP TMC personnel, including the second payment to Dr. Posadas of P36,
000.00 for his services as TMC Projects Local Consultant. The Resident Auditor further
suspended payment of P30, 000.00 honorarium per month to Dr. Posadas as Project Director
from September 18 to October 17, 1995. However, the UP Diliman Legal Office issued a
Memorandum to the COA Resident Auditor, pointing out that the amounts paid the TMC Project
personnel were legal, being in the nature of consultancy fees. The legal office also confirmed
the authority of Dr. Dayco, while he was OIC Chancellor, to appoint Dr. Posadas as project
director and consultant of the TMC Project. Finding this explanation acceptable, the COA
Resident Auditor lifted his previous notices of suspension.
The Sandiganbayan had sentenced Posadas and Dayco from nine years to 12 years
imprisonment and disqualification from public office.
Issue:
Is the appointment of petitioners in good faith under Section 3(e) of Republic 3019?
Held:
Yes. The bad faith that Section 3(e) of Republic 3019 requires, said this Court, does not simply
connote bad judgment or negligence. It imputes a dishonest purpose, some moral obliquity, and
a conscious doing of a wrong. Indeed, it partakes of the nature of fraud. Here, admittedly, Dr.
Dayco appears to have taken advantage of his brief designation as OIC Chancellor to appoint
the absent Chancellor, Dr. Posadas, as Director and consultant of the TMC Project. But it

cannot be said that Dr. Dayco made those appointments and Dr. Posadas accepted them,
fraudulently, knowing fully well that Dr. Dayco did not have that authority as OIC Chancellor.

Sison vs. People

666 SCRA 645
February 22, 2012
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:
One evening in April 2003, AAA boarded the passenger van of Arnel Sison. AAA was on her way
to work. AAA was the last passenger but when she was about to reach her place of destination,
Sison drove on until they reached a motel. Sison threatened AAA with a gun hence AAA was
helpless. Sison was able to rape AAA inside the motel. Later, AAA reported the incident to the
police. Several days later, Sison was caught driving the same passenger van. Recovered from
him was a gun for which he had no license to carry (expired).
The trial court eventually convicted Sison for two crimes: kidnapping with rape and violation of
P.D. 1866 (carrying of unlicensed firearm).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the guilt of Sison but ruled that the crimes should be rape and
violation of P.D. 1866. The CA ruled that it is not kidnapping with rape because the intent of
Sison was only to rape and the detention made upon AAA was deemed absorbed in rape. The
CA likewise ruled that Sison is guilty of violation of P.D. 1866.
Issue:
Whether Sison should be convicted for both crimes.
Held:
No. Sison should only be convicted for rape. Under Section 1 of P.D. 1866, an offender may be
convicted of illegal possession of firearms provided that no other crime was committed by the
person arrested. In this case, Sison also committed the crime of rape on the occasion when he
was unlawfully possessing a gun. Hence, pursuant to P.D. 1866, Sison can only be convicted of
rape and the charge for illegal possession should be dropped.
However, pursuant to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the use of a deadly weapon in the
commission of rape shall qualify the crime to qualified rape. Therefore, Sison is convicted for
qualified rape and shall serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

People vs. Samandre

666 SCRA 577
February 22, 2012
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:
Accused-appellant was indicted for four counts of rape qualified by his relationship with and the
minority of AAA. AAA is the eldest child of accused-appellant. In the evening AAA was
awakened by her father, AAA, who told her he wanted to have sex with her. AAA did not say
anything and accused-appellant got angry and threatened to hurt her. Accused-appellant went
on top of AAA, removed his short pants, as well as AAAs shorts, spread one of her legs and
inserted his penis inside her vagina. Because of the pain, AAA cried and tried to struggle with
accused-appellant while the latter made a push and pull movement. After removing his penis
from the vagina of AAA, he wiped it and the vagina of the latter and then slept beside her. In the
evening of January 12, 2000, AAA was again awakened and raped by accused-appellant as
what happened the night before. The same sexual molestation was repeated by accusedappellant on AAA at about 2:00 oclock and 3:00 oclock in the morning of January 14, 2000. All
of the incidents took place while AAAs mother and other siblings were asleep.
Accused-appellant denied having molested AAA. He claimed that, AAA left their house after he
scolded her because she wanted to marry Freddie, who is already a married man. He went to
Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, which is his province, to look for AAA, because she told her mother that
she would go there. In the afternoon of January 13, 2000, accused-appellant was in the house
of his brother-in-law in order to discuss the marriage of AAA. He went to the house of his
brother-in-law where he saw AAA and Freddie. He stated that AAA filed the cases against him
because she wanted him to go to jail so that she could do whatever she wanted. He tried to
show that they have three (3) beds in the house, one bed is occupied by his two (2) sons, the
big bed is occupied by him, his wife and their other children, including AAA, and that no one
occupies the small bed.
Issue:
Is accused appellant innocent in the crimes of qualified rape?
Held:
No. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a
man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through
force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when
the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present. In People v. Orillosa, 433 SCRA 689 (2004), the
Court held that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be
employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private complainants
father, would suffice. The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-

appellant, taking advantage of his moral ascendancy as a father, had carnal knowledge of his
16-year-old daughter, AAA.
People vs. Bautista
666 SCRA 518
February 22, 2012
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:

The accused is charged for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu respectively punished
under Section 5 and Section 11 (3) of Republic Act No. 9165.
An informant went to the Station Drug Enforcement Unit of the Caloocan Police Station to report
the peddling of illegal drugs by Bautista on Kasama Street, Barangay 28, Caloocan City
prompting a buy-bust operation. Upon arriving at the target area, the informant pointed out
Bautista to the team. Bautista was then standing in front of a house. PO2 Tayag and the
informant then approached Bautista even as the rest of the team took up positions nearby. The
informant introduced PO2 Tayag to Bautista as biyahero ng shabu, after which the informant left
PO2 Tayag and Bautista alone to themselves. PO2 Tayag told Bautista: Cesar, pakuha ng piso.
Bautista drew a plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it to PO2 Tayag, who in turn handed
the P100.00 bill buy-bust money to Bautista. PO2 Tayag then turned his cap backwards as the
pre-arranged signal to the back-up members. The latter rushed forward and arrested Bautista.
Upon informing Bautista of his constitutional rights, SPO1 Ybaez frisked him and found in his
pocket six other plastic sachets, while PO2 Caragdag seized the buy-bust money from
Bautistas hand. The team brought Bautista and the seized plastic sachets back to the police
station.
Bautista denied the charge. He claimed that on April 25, 2003, at around 6:00 p.m., he and his
wife, Rosario, were in their house cutting cloth to be made into door mats when PO2 Tayag
came.
Issue:
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty to the crime charge to him?
Held:
Yes. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be
established: (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. What is
material in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The
requisites for illegal sale of shabu were competently and convincingly proven by the
Prosecution. PO2 Tayag, as the poseur-buyer, attested that Bautista sold shabu to him during a
legitimate buy-bust operation. According to Forensic Chemist Arturo, the substance subject of
the transaction, which weighed 0.05 gram, was examined and found to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. PO2 Caragdag declared that he recovered the buybust money from Bautistas hand right after the sale. Further, the Prosecution later presented as
evidence both the sachet of shabu subject of the sale and the buy-bust money used in the buybust operation. Thereby, the Prosecution directly incriminated Bautista.

People vs. Calumbres,

698 SCRA 181
June 10, 2013
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:

The RTC found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165.
An informant reported that someone was selling shabu at Sto. Nio, Brgy. 31 prompting a buybust operation. SPO1 Dela Victoria then hired a faux-buyer, giving the latter five twenty-peso
bills marked money, and, riding a trisikad, the duo proceeded to the area that the informant
described. SPO1 Dela Victoria claimed to have positioned himself at a strategic place where he
could see the transaction. He saw his poseur-buyer handing something to Gloria Calumbres
(Calumbres) after receiving something from the latter; the poseur-buyers pre-arranged signal
followed, prompting him to immediately approach Calumbres. He ordered her not to move,
police mi, ayaw lihok, shocking the accused into disbelief. He took the money from Calumbres
and retrieved the suspected shabu from the faux-buyer who was standing two meters away.
SPO1 Dela Victoria brought Calumbres to his office at the Cogon Market for booking. He
claimed he recorded the incident in the police blotter, prepared a request for laboratory analysis
of the confiscated item and allegedly took a photograph, which, according to his testimony, was
not developed, however, due to budget constraints.
Calumbres defense was corroborated by Relian Abarrientos (Abarrientos), a store employee
who witnessed the whole incident. Abarrientos testified that in April 2004, a woman tried to
snatch a wallet from a man inside the store. The mans wife caught her and the snatcher was
detained at the Cogon Police Station. Abarrientos claimed that this was the only incident that
happened in the store.
Issue:
Can SPO1 Dela Victorias claim that the sachet of shabu presented in court was the same one
confiscated from Calumbres, cannot be taken at its face value, solely on the presumption of
regularity of ones performance of duty?
Held:
No. SPO1 Dela Victoria blatantly broke all the rules established by law to safeguard the identity
of a corpus delicti. To allow this to happen is to abandon everything that has been said about
the necessity of proving an unbroken chain of custody of the corpus delicti. We reiterate that this
Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized
drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga, 602 SCRA 783 (2009), we acquitted the
accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items. We also
reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez, 598 SCRA 92 (2009), for the failure of the buy-bust
team to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v.

Cantalejo, 586 SCRA 777 (2009), also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or
photograph was ever made by the police.

People vs. Martin

659 SCRA 783
October 19, 2011
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:
The accused was convicted for the sale of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
Accused cries foul, alleging extortion and citing various irregularities in the prosecutions
evidence and in the conduct of the alleged buy-bust operation.
The police officers testified that the pre-arranged signal to indicate the consummation of the buy
bust operation was the arrest of the accused. Only the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Mora, and the
confidential informant were with Martin minutes prior to the latters arrest. SPO3 Ong confirmed
that he was 10 to 15 meters away from SPO1 Mora and Martin while the meeting was taking
place such that he could not ascertain what was going on between the poseur buyer, SPO1
Mora and the accused and that he was the only police officer who assisted SPO1 Mora during
the arrest, as the other police officers were left inside their respective vehicles and were very
far from him.
The accused denied that he is alias Inpet, or that he gave PO1 Mora a plastic sachet containing
shabu. He testified that on 6 November 2006, he was working at the junkshop with Jimmy
Garrote whom he later invited for lunch at his house nearby. They were about to enter the alley
near Oro-B when the accuseds neighbor, Juvilyn Caletisen, called out to talk with him. A certain
Jayrold was also in the alley. It was then that six policemen arrived and forced them to go with
the police. They arrested the accused, herself, Jimmy, Jayrold, and a certain Brian and brought
them to the police headquarters where they were detained for a night. All testified that the police
demanded that they give P5, 000 each for their release or else, they will be charged with a
crime. All the defense witnesses also testified that except for Martin who had no money, all of
them were released because they were each able to give the P5, 000 which the police
demanded.
Issue:
Whether the accused-appellant be convicted for their crimes despite non-compliance with the
chain-custody rule?
Held:
No. While noncompliance with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not
necessarily fatal to the prosecutions case because the last sentence of the implementing rules
provides 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, nevertheless, lapses in procedure must be recognized and explained in terms of

their justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be
shown to have been preserved. Otherwise, the procedure set out in the law will be mere lip
service.
The presumption that the police officers regularly performed their duty cannot, standing alone,
defeat the presumption of innocence of the accused herein. Generally, law enforcers are
presumed to have regularly performed their duty, but this is a mere procedural presumption
which cannot overturn the constitutionally recognized presumption of innocence of the accused
where lapses in the buy bust operation are shown.
People vs. Zapata
659 SCRA 691
October 19, 2011
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:

The RTC found the appellant guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC held that the witnesses for the prosecution were able to prove that a
buy-bust operation indeed took place; and the shabu subject of the sale was brought to, and
duly identified in, court. It found no improper motive on the part of the police officers to falsely
testify against the appellant. The lower court likewise disregarded the appellants claim of frameup, as this defense can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in
prosecutions for violation of dangerous drugs. Accordingly, it ordered the appellant to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment, and to pay a P500, 000.00 fine. The CA affirmed the RTC decision
in toto. It held that the poseur-buyer positively identified the appellant as the person who gave
him two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances in exchange for
P300.00. It added that the plastic sachets were submitted to the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination, and were found to be positive for the presence of
shabu.
Issue:
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty to the crime charge to him?
Held:
Yes. For a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer
and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs
is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti of evidence.
The Supreme Court stress that the appellant failed to raise the buy-bust teams alleged noncompliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 during trial; this argument cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal. At any rate, whatever minor deviations there might have been
is not fatal, as failure to strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 will not
necessarily render the items confiscated from an accused inadmissible; what is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as
these are the evidence critical in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

People vs. Salak

645 SCRA 269
March 14, 2011
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:
The NBI Special Task Force (STF) received information from one of their assets that a certain
Baida is engaged in selling shabu at Litex Market in Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City
prompting a buy-bust operation.
The asset introduced Kawada to appellant and the two discussed the terms of the transaction.
Kawada agreed to pay P60, 000 per 100 grams of shabu, or a total of P180,000 for the 300
grams which appellant will supply. Kawada suggested that the exchange be made at the parking
lot of Ever Gotesco Mall along Commonwealth Avenue, but appellant insisted that the venue be
at Litex Market. Upon arriving at Litex Market, appellant alighted and left to retrieve the drugs.
She returned 30 minutes later, followed by Karim and Boy Life, this time carrying a plastic bag.
Appellant entered Kawadas car, while her two companions stood guard outside. Appellant
showed Kawada three small heat-sealed plastic sachets packed inside a bigger plastic bag.
Appellant gave the plastic bag containing the three heat-sealed sachets to Kawada who, in turn,
gave P180, 000 in genuine bills. While appellant was busy counting the money, Kawada
identified himself as an NBI operative and arrested appellant. Meanwhile, outside Kawadas
vehicle, appellants two male companions, perhaps sensing that something was amiss, instantly
took off and mingled with the crowd at Litex Market as other NBI agents rushed towards the
location of Kawadas vehicle.
In appellant defense, they denied the charges against them.
Issue:
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty to the crime charge to him?
Held:
Yes. 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. These elements were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt through testimonial, documentary and object evidence presented
during the trial.

People vs. Babanggol

630 SCRA 588
September 15, 2010
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:
Accused Acas Sumayan, Arnel Babanggol, Cesar Naranjo, and Edwin San Jose was charged
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paraaque for selling 295.8 grams of prohibited drug
commonly known as shabu.
A police informant showed up at the Service Support Office of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Narcotics Group and spoke to PO2 Alfonso and P/Sr. Insp. Romualdo Iglesia. After their
meeting, Iglesia ordered several police officers to conduct a buy-bust operation against accused
Sumayan and Babanggol. The police informant would make an order for 300 grams of shabu
from the two for a price of P300, 000.00. The purchase was to take place at the Coastal Mall,
Paraaque City prompting a buy-bust operation and succeeded.
Forensic chemist P/Sr. Insp. Eustaquio testified that she received the request for laboratory
examination of the substance in a plastic bag wrapped in a brown paper bag. A qualitative
examination of the same showed that it weighed 295.8 grams and was methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.
Issue:
Whether the presentation of the police informant is not necessary to prove the offense charged
Held:
Yes. The presentation of the police informant is not necessary to prove the offense charged.
The prosecution of criminal actions is under the public prosecutors direction and control. He
determines what evidence to present. In this case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
sufficiently covered the facts constituting the offense. Since police officer Alfonso who testified
was present during the buy-bust operation, the testimony of the informant would have merely
been corroborative.

People vs. Salcena

660 SCRA 349
November 16, 2011
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:
During the entrapment operation, Catubay and Esguerra went to appellant and asked if they
could buy shabu. Appellant handed to Catubay a plastic sachet containing shabu and in return
received the P100 marked money. At this point, Catubay immediately arrested appellant and
recovered from her the marked money. Just as appellant was apprehended, another woman
(identified in court as Arlene M. Armas), ran from the scene, prompting the tanods to arrest her.
The two women were brought to the BSDO office of the barangay hall of Barangay San Antonio
for recording purposes. After which, they were taken to the PNP Headquarter in Camp Karingal
in Quezon City.
On the defense side, GARET SALCENA and Arlene Armas were on board a tricycle en route to
Pantranco. Before they were able to reach their destination, two (2) barangay tanods stopped
their tricycle and asked them to step out.
Subsequently, the duo were invited to the barangay hall where they were bodily frisked by a
female barangay tanod. After they were frisked, the lady tanod said, negative ito. Despite this,
however, a male tanod said, kahit na negative yan, positive yan.
Consequently, a plastic sachet was taken from the table of one of the tanods and planted as
evidence against the accused. The duo was subsequently brought to the Camp Karingal police
station.
Issue:
Whether the presumption of regularity can prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to
be presumed innocent and it cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt?
Held:
No. While the court is mindful that the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the
accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. The foregoing conflicting narrations and improbabilities, seemingly trivial
when viewed in isolation, cast serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses when
considered together. Unfortunately, they were glossed over by the RTC and the CA invoking the

presumption that barangay tanod Catubay and Esguerra were in the regular performance of
their bounden duties at the time of the incident. It should be stressed, however, that while the
court is mindful that the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of
their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be
presumed innocent and it cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The attendant circumstances negate the presumption accorded to these prosecution witnesses.

People vs. Bara

660 SCRA 38
November 14, 2011
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:
Asmad Bara y Asmad (appellant) was convicted guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of
shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Upon receipt of information that the appellant was selling drugs on M. Adriatico Street, Malate,
Manila, Senior Police Officer 1 Rodolfo Ramos informed the members of the Western Police
District, District Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Group, United Nations Avenue, Ermita,
Manila, of a planned surveillance and narcotics operation. SPO1 Ramos prepared the preoperation report and the buy-bust money consisting of two P100.00 bills; he also designated
Police Officer 1 Alexander delos Santos as the poseur-buyer.
The buy-bust was successful.
Issue:
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty to the crime charge to him?
Held:
Yes, in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly
established: (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. The delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the
buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the transaction or sale
transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. Upon examination of the
records of the instant case confirms the presence of all the required elements. The witness for
the prosecution successfully proved that a buy-bust operation indeed took place, and the shabu
subject of the sale was brought to and duly identified in court. PO1 Delos Santos positively
identified the appellant as the person who sold to him one plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substances in exchange for P200.00. The white crystalline substances contained in
the seized plastic sachet were examined and confirmed to be shabu per Chemistry Report No.
D-653-04 issued by the PNP Forensic Chemical Officer, P/Insp. Mariano. P/Insp. Marianos
finding was approved by the Chief of the PNPs Chemical Section, Police Senior Inspector
Judycel Macapagal. Significantly, the appellant did not impute any ill motive on the part of PO1
Delos Santos that would lead the latter to falsely testify.

People vs. Garcia

580 SCRA 259
February 25, 2009
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:
The appellant was suspected of selling marijuana in San Roque Church, Navotas, Metro Manila.
According to PO1 Garcia, after the arrest, they brought Ruiz to the DEU7 office for investigation
and turned over the seized items to the investigator, who then placed markings on the wrapper
the seized items were thereafter sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination; they tested
positive for marijuana.
The defense claimed that the case was a trumped-up charge made by the police to extort
money from him. In making this claim, he admitted that he did not know PO1 Garcia and that he
saw him for the first when he was arrested. He insisted that he knew a certain Balais who
arrested suspected pushers/users in their place.
Issue:
Whether the appellant is guilty of Illegal Sale of Shabu?
Held:
No. In People v. Orteza, 528 SCRA 750 (2007), the Court, in discussing the implications of the
failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, declared: In People v.
Laxa, 361 SCRA 622 (2001), where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana
immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the
standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the
marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the
identity of the corpus delicti. The Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura, 428 SCRA 51
(2004), where the Narcom operatives failed to place markings on the seized marijuana at the
time the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug.
More recently, in Zarraga v. People, 484 SCRA 639 (2006), the Court held that the 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. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the prosecutions failure to indubitably show
the identity of the shabu.

People vs. Ramos

598 SCRA 472
September 04, 2009
Nigel R. Garcia
Facts:
While walking along Camino Dela Fe Street, Guadalupe Nuevo heading towards to the
appellant mothers house, he was suddenly grabbed from behind by five unidentified persons
who poked a gun at him. Upon inquiring what his violation was, he was told that they were
looking for someone named Danny. He denied knowing any such individual, however. He was
then handcuffed, forced into a Revo vehicle parked nearby, and brought to the police station. At
the police station, someone took out a small plastic sachet and a yellow tin can from a drawer,
as another said Sige tuluyan niyo na siya, ito na ebidensiya natin. However, appellant denied
the accusation and claimed that the evidence against him was planted.
Issue:
Whether the buy-bust operation is proper?
Held:
No. Due to the built-in dangers of abuse that buy-bust operation entails, it is governed by
specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law
procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation and of the
accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by peace officers to apprehend
prohibited drug law violators in the act of committing a drug-related offense. Because of the
built-in dangers of abuse that the operation entails, it is governed by specific procedures on the
seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that
the rights of people under criminal investigation and of the accused facing a criminal charge are
safeguarded. People v. Tan, 348 SCRA 116 (2000), mirrors these dangers and thus exhorts
courts to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases: [B]y the very nature of anti-narcotic operations,
the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with
which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in the pockets or hands of
unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the
possibility of abuse is great. Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying
drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug
offenses.