People of the Philippines vs.

Noel Catentay
G.R. No. 183101
Violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
In this case, although the plastic sachets that the forensic chemist received were heat-sealed and
authenticated by the police officer with his personal markings, the forensic chemist broke the seal,
opened the plastic sachet, and took out some of the substances for chemical analysis. No evidence had
been adduced to show that the forensic chemist properly closed and resealed the plastic sachets with
adhesive and placed his own markings on the resealed plastic to preserve the integrity of their contents
until they were brought to court. Nor was any stipulation made to this effect. The plastic sachets
apparently showed up at the pre-trial, not bearing the forensic chemists seal, and was brought from the
crime laboratory by someone who did not care to testify how he came to be in possession of the same.
The evidence did not establish the unbroken chain of custody. ACQUITTED.
People v. Kamad
G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010
FACTS: On October 16, 2002 the Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Unit of the Southern
Police District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig received information from an asset that a certain Zaida was selling
shabu at Purok IV, Silverio Compound, Paranaque City. At 10 PM of October 16, 2002, SPO2 Sanchez,
poseur-buyer, gave marked PHP 300 bills to accused-appellant for the purchase of shabu. Upon receipt
of the item, Zaida Kamad and her boyfriend, Leo, were arrested. The RTC Branch 259 of Paranaque City
found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II, of RA 9165 for the
illegal sale of 0.20 gram of methamphetamine HCL. On appeal, the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the
RTC.
ISSUE: Is accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165
for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of shabu?
RULING: No, the Court ruled that in the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, thethe following
elements must be established: (1) proof that the transaction took place, (2) corpus delicti presented as
evidence. Records showed that the prosecution through SPO2 Sanchez, established the sale of the
prohibited drug shabu by accused-appellant but the RTC and the CA failed to notice the defects in the
prosecutions case such as (1) lapse in implementing Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 in the handling of
the seized shabu and (2) failure of police to comply with the chain of custody rule. For violations of
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, no inventory and photographing of seized drugs was done at the place
of arrest as well as the presence of the accused as it was being done nor a representative of the media,
the DOJ, and any elected pubic official who will confirm that evidence seized were as they were found.
Neither was it established by the prosecution why such thing were not followed by presenting (1)
justifiable cause and (2) preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of seized evidence as required by
the IRR of RA 9165 Section 21-A. For non-compliance of the chain of custody rule, which requires the
documentation and description of evidence as it is being processed along the system was neither
complied. Court reverses and sets aside the decision of the CA affirming the final judgment of RTC
Branch 259 of Paranaque City for the illegal sale of shabu of accused-appellant. Zaida Kamad is hereby
acquitted and ordered released from detention.
People of the Philippines v. Narciso Agulay y Lopez
G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008
Appellants defense of frame-up fails. For, like alibi, it can easily be concocted, hence, it must be proven
by clear and convincing evidence. This appellant failed to discharge.
Apart from his defense that he is a victim of a frame-up and extortion by the police officers, accusedappellant could not present any other viable defense. While the presumption of regularity in the

performance of official duty by law enforcement agents should not by itself prevail over the presumption
of innocence, for the claim of frame-up to prosper, the defense must be able to present clear and
convincing evidence to overcome this presumption of regularity.
Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board And PDEA
G.R. No. 157870
FACTS: In 2002, Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was
implemented. Section 36 thereof requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students
of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons
charged before the prosecutors office with certain offenses. In December 2003, COMELEC issued
Resolution No. 6486, prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of candidates
for public office in connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and local elections. Aquilino
Pimentel, Jr., a senator and a candidate for re- election in the May elections, filed a Petition for Certiorari
and Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in that they impose a
qualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution;
and (2) to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 6486. According to Pimentel, the
Constitution only prescribes a maximum of five (5) qualifications for one to be a candidate for, elected to,
and be a member of the Senate. He says that both the Congress and COMELEC, by requiring, via RA
9165 and Resolution No. 6486, a senatorial aspirant, among other candidates, to undergo a mandatory
drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates for senator must first be certified as drug
free. He adds that there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the Congress or COMELEC to
expand the qualification requirements of candidates for senator.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 36 of RA 9165 and Resolution 6486 are constitutional.
HELD: No. Pimentels contention is valid. Accordingly, Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional. It is basic
that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void
and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if
it conflicts with the Constitution. In the discharge of their defined functions, the three departments of
government have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it
imposes must be observed.
The provision [n]o person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has
undergone mandatory drug test is not tenable as it enlarges the qualifications. COMELEC cannot, in the
guise of enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement
Sec. 36, validly impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution
prescribes. If Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification, the
COMELEC, to be sure, is also without such power. The right of a citizen in the democratic process of
election should not be defeated by unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the
Constitution.
Michael Padua vs. People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 168546, July 23, 2008
Facts: June 16, 2003, Padua and Edgar Ubalde were charged before the RTC Pasig of violation of R.A.
No. 9165 [Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs act of 2002] for selling dangerous drugs. When arraigned,
Padua assisted by counsel de officio entered a plea of not guilty. During the pre-trial, Paduas counsel de
officio manifested that his client was willing to withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty to
st
avail the benefits granted to 1 time offenders. The prosecutor interposed no objection, thus the not guilty
plea was withdrawn, Padua re-arraigned and pleaded guilty.
st

Padua then filed a petition for probation alleging that he is a minor and a 1 time offender, and that he
possess all qualifications and none of the disqualifications of the probation law. RTC ordered for the post-

sentenced investigation and recommendation and comment of the probation office and the city prosecutor
relatively.
Pasana, the chief probation and parole officer recommended Padua to be placed on probation. However,
Judge Reyes-Carpio issued an order denying the petition for probation on the ground that under R.A. No.
9165, any person convicted of drug trafficking cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law.
Padua filed a motion for reconsideration but the same was denied. He filed for a petition for certiorari, but
the CA dismissed his petition.
Issue: Whether Padua can avail the benefits of the Probation Law.
Held:
(1) CA did not err in dismissing Paduas petition for certiorari. The requisites for the certiorari must
occur: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
Without jurisdiction means that the court acted with absolute lack of authority. There is excess of
jurisdiction when the court transcends its power or acts without any statutory authority. Grave abuse of
discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as to be equivalent to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
(2) Any person convicted for drug trafficking or pushing, regardless of the penalty imposed, can not avail
of the privilege granted by the Probation Law or P.D. No. 968. The elementary rule in statutory
construction is that when the words and phrases of the statute are clear and unequivocal, their meaning
must be determined from the language employed and the statute must be taken to mean exactly what it
says. If a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied
without attempted interpretation. This is what is known as the plain-meaning rule or verba legis. It is
expressed in the maxim,index animi sermo, or speech is the index of intention. Furthermore, there is the
maxim verba legis non est recedendum, or from the words of a statute there should be no departure.
(3) Padua cannot argue that his right under Rep. Act No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006 was violated. Nor can he argue that Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC otherwise known as the
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law has application in this case. Section 68 of Rep. Act No. 9344
and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC both pertain to suspension of sentence and not probation.
Petitioner has already reached 21 years of age or over and thus, could no longer be considered a child
for purposes of applying Rep. Act 9344. Thus, the application of Sections 38 and 40 appears moot and
academic as far as his case is concerned.
People of the Philippines vs. Bernardo F. Nicolas
G.R. No. 170234 February 8, 2007
FACTS: In an Information dated 7 August 2002, accused-appellant Bernardo Felizardo Nicolas, a.k.a.
Bernie, was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, for allegedly having
sold one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.42 gram of white crystalline substance
which was found positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, to
PO2 Danilo S. Damasco.
During trial, the prosecution testified that the accused was caught in a buy-bust operation conducted by
the team of PO2 Danilo S. Damasco, PO2 Montefalcon, PO2 Orig and SPO2 Zipagan through the
information given by a confidential informant, who went with the said team during the operation. Accused,
however, refuted said claims, saying that: 1) there was no buy-bust operation and that the shabu
(methamphetamine hydrochloride) allegedly sold by him to the poseur buyer was planted evidence; and

2) the trumped-up charge is a way of getting even with him because he, together with his wife, had filed a
case before the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) for grave misconduct against several
policemen (PO2 Joel Tapec, PO1 Christopher Semana and five John Does) assigned at the Station Drug
Enforcement Unit of the Pasig Police Station, for entering and robbing their house on 5 February 2002.
In support of his first argument, accused claimed that the non-conduct of a surveillance and the absence
of any agreement as regards the money to be used in buying the shabu and as regards the signal to
inform the back-up policemen that the transaction has been consummated shows that there is so much
doubt as to the existence of a buy-bust operation.
After trial, the lower court decided convicting the accused. The Court of Appeals then affirmed the
decision of the lower court. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: Are the non-conduct of surveillance and the absence of any agreement as regards the money to
be used in buying the shabu and as regards the signal to inform the back-up policemen that the
transaction has been consummated essential to establish the existence of a buy-bust operation?
HELD: No. Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the
legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The
Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug
dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police
operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police
work. In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation was conducted without need of any prior surveillance for
the reason that the informant accompanied the policemen to the person who is peddling the dangerous
drugs.
The fact that the team leader and the other members of the team did not discuss or talk about the marked
money does not necessarily mean that there was no buy-bust operation. As explained by SPO2 Zipagan,
since PO2 Damasco was the designated poseur buyer it was the latter's discretion as to how to prepare
the marked money. It is not required that all the members of the buy-bust team know how the marked
money is to be produced and marked inasmuch as they have their respective roles to perform in the
operation. As this Court sees it, the other members of the team left the matter of the marked money to
one person the poseur buyer because it was he who was to deal directly with the drug pusher.
As to the absence of a pre-arranged signal, same is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution. The
employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in a buy-bust operation. What
determines if there was, indeed, a sale of dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of all the elements
of the offense. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a
valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. The elements necessary for the
prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore. 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 evidence of corpus delicti. In the case under consideration, all
these elements have been established.