SECOND DIVISION

the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon

City in Criminal Case Q-03-116898 with
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.
178544 violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Appellee, Act (R.A.) 9165 or the Comprehensive
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson, Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
- versus - VELASCO, JR.,*
P
E At the trial, PO2 Bernard Amigo testified
R that at about 1:00 p.m. on April 23, 2003
A
L the Batasan Police Station got a tip from
T
an informant that accused Paloma was
A
, selling illegal drugs at Pacomara Street in
A
Commonwealth, Quezon City. The station
B
A chief directed PO2 Amigo and PO1 Arnold
D
, Pealosa to conduct a buy-bust operation
involving Paloma. The police officers went
a
n to Pacomara Street with the informant and
d brought with them a P100.00 bill marked
M
E with the initials AP.
N
D
O When the buy-bust team arrived at
Z Pacomara Street at around 3:15 p.m., they
A
, saw Paloma standing beside a man and a
woman. PO1 Pealosa and the informant
J
J approached them; PO2 Amigo, the
.
witness, stood as back-up some 15 meters
MANUEL PALOMA y ESPINOSA,
Appellant. Promulgated: away. From where he stood, he saw PO1

February 23, 2011 Pealosa talking to Paloma. Momentarily,

x PO1 Pealosa waved his hand, signifying
-----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------- x that he had made the purchase. On seeing
the pre-arranged signal, PO2 Amigo
DECISION
approached and arrested Paloma; PO1
ABAD, J.: Pealosa for his part arrested Palomas
companions, later on identified as Noriel
This case is about the need in cases of Bamba (Bamba) and Angie Grotel
illegal sale of prohibited drugs for the (Grotel). PO2 Amigo recovered from
prosecution to prove the details of the Palomas pants pocket a plastic sachet with
transaction through someone who saw the a white crystalline substance and the
sale take place. marked P100.00 bill.

The Facts and the Case
The public prosecutor charged the
accused Manuel Paloma (Paloma) before
After the police officers informed Paloma,
Bamba, and Grotel of their rights during
custodial investigation, they brought them
to the police station and turned them over
to the desk officer. The arresting officers
also turned over the three sachets of To prove the crime of illegal sale of drugs
suspected shabu that they under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the
seized. According to PO2 Amigo, two of prosecution is required to prove (a) the
these sachets were those that PO1 identity of the buyer and the seller as well
Pealosa bought from Paloma. The police as the object and consideration of the
eventually let Bamba and Grotel go for the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold
reason that the police officers found no and the payment given for the
illegal drugs in their possession. same. Further, the prosecution must
present in court evidence of corpus delicti.
In his defense, Paloma denied that such a [1]

buy-bust operation took place. He claimed

that at the time of the alleged buy-bust,
he was with his 80-year-old mother at
their house on Pacomara Street, taking a
nap. Suddenly, five armed men in civilian
clothes barged into the house and woke
him up. Two of them held him by the arms
while the others searched
house. Although the men found nothing,
they handcuffed him and brought him to
the police station.
On June 10, 2005 the RTC found Paloma
guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Criminal Case Q-03-116898 of the crime
charged and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P500,000.00.
On February 13, 2007 the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. HC CR 01289 affirmed the
RTCs ruling in toto.
Here, the proof of the sale of illegal
drugs is wanting.
One. Under the objective test set by the
Court in People v. Doria,[2] the prosecution
must clearly and adequately show the
the details of the purported sale, namely, the
initial contact between the poseur-buyer
and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the
promise or payment of the consideration,
and, finally, the accuseds delivery of the
illegal drug to the buyer, whether the
in latter be the informant alone or the police
officer. This proof is essential to ensure
that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully
induced to commit the offense.[3]
Here, PO2 Amigos testimony miserably
failed to establish the required details of
the supposed illegal drug sale. He testified
on direct examination:

Q: When you, [P]olice

The Issue Presented
[O]fficer Pealosa and
the confidential
informant arrived at
The sole issue in this case is whether or around 3:15 at
not the CA erred in finding that the Pacomara Street,
what happened
prosecution succeeded in proving beyond there?
reasonable doubt that Paloma sold A: Upon arrival of that said
place Pacomara
prohibited drugs to PO1 Pealosa. Street we saw
Paloma and one
female
The Ruling of the Court companion talking
with each other.[4]
xxxx A: We rushed up to the area
where they were
Q: Now when Police standing.
Officer Pealosa
and the asset Q: When you arrived in that
approached area what happened
Paloma where there?
were you at that A: I grabbed Paloma and
time? made the search.
A: I was in a hiding [5]
(Emphasis
place, in a viewing supplied)
distance.

Q: Can you see them All that PO2 Amigo could say was that PO1
talking with each
other from where Pealosa and the informant approached
you were Paloma, talked to him, and then PO1
stationed?
A: Yes, sir. Pealosa made the pre-arranged signal that
the sale had been consummated. Since he
Q: You said earlier Mr.
Witness that there was standing at a great distance during
were other person[s] the purported buy-bust, PO2 Amigo could
other than Paloma,
female and not provide the details of the offer to buy
male when Police
the drug and the acceptance of that
Officer Pealosa and
the confidential offer. Indeed, he did not see Paloma take
informant
money from PO1 Pealosa nor Pealosa take
approached him,
where were these delivery of the prohibited substance from
two persons?
A: They were beside each Paloma.
other.
Q: What were they doing,
these two persons at The cross-examination of PO2 Amigo does
that time when they not help. He testified:
approached by your
companion?
A: They were just standing. Q: As a back up Mr.
Witness you will
Q: When these Pealosa agree with me
and confidential that you cannot
informant hear what was the
approached the conversation
subject, what between the
happened informant, Mr.
next? What transpi Pealosa and Mr.
red next at that Paloma?
time? A: Yes, maam.
A: While they were
talking Pealosa Q: So you merely acted
made the pre- upon their gesture?
arrange[d] signal. A: Yes, maam.
Q: So Mr. Witness when you
Q: What was that signal rushed-in to the
that Pealosa did? place where the buy-
A: By waving his hand. bust operation was
Q: Meaning to say? being conducted,
A: The buy-bust has you just rushed-in
already not because you
consummated. were called upon,
but because of the
Q: When Pealosa made that gesture that the
signal what did you same was
do if any? consummated?
A: Yes maam only the pre-
arranged signal.
 [6]
(Emphasis
supplied)

WE CONCUR:
While law enforcers enjoy the presumption
of regularity in the performance of their
duties, this presumption is disputable by ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
contrary proof and cannot prevail over the
constitutional right of the accused to be
presumed innocent.[7] The totality of the
evidence presented in this case does not PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
support Palomas conviction for violation of Associate Justice Associate Justice
Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, since the
prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
offense.[8] Associate Justice

WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the

petition, SETS ASIDE the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC CR 01289
dated February 13, 2007 as well as the
decision of the Regional Trial Court of
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Courts Division.

Quezon City, Branch 103, in Criminal Case

Q-03-116898, and ACQUITS the accused-
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
appellant Manuel Paloma y Espinosa of the Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second
crime of which he is charged on the
Division
ground of reasonable doubt. The Court
orders his immediate RELEASE from
custody unless he is being held for some CERTIFICATION
other lawful cause. Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions
The Court further ORDERS the Director of in the above Decision had been reached in
the Bureau of Corrections to implement consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
this Decision forthwith and to inform this Division.
Court, within five (5) days from receipt
hereof, of the date appellant was actually
RENATO C. CORONA
released from confinement. Costs de
Chief Justice
oficio.

SO ORDERED. G.R. No. 182525, March 02 : 2011]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BERTHA
R PRESAS Y TOLENTINO, ACCUSED-
OBER APPELLANT.
TO A.
ABAD DECISION
Associate Justice
 PEREZ, J.:
Subject of this appeal is the Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR-H.C.
No. 02361 dated 22 October 2007,
affirming the Judgment[2] dated 9 May
2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 64 of Makati City, finding appellant
Bertha Presas y Tolentino guilty of illegal
sale of shabu.
Two separate Informations were filed
before the RTC. In Criminal Case No. 03-
2795, appellant was accused of illegal sale
of shabu which reads:
That on or about the 30th day of July 2003,
in the City of Makati, Philippines, a place
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without
being authorized by law, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell[,] distribute and transport, weighing
zero point zero six (0.06) gram of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu),
which is a dangerous drug, in violation of
the above-cited law.[3]
In Criminal Case No. 03-2796, appellant
was charged with illegal possession
of shabu allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 30th day of July
2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, a
place within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, not lawfully authorized to
possess or otherwise use any dangerous
drug and without the corresponding
license or prescription, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
his possession, direct custody and control
weighing zero point zero seven (0.07)
gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(Shabu), which is a dangerous drug, in
violation of the above-cited law.[4]
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not
guilty to both charges. In a joint pre-trial
conference conducted on 9 September
2003, the following facts were stipulated:
1. That these cases were
investigated by PO1 Alex
Inopia;
2. That after the investigation
of PO1 Alex Inopia, he
prepared the Final
Investigation Report;
3. That the PNP Anti Illegal
Drug Special Operation Sub-
Task Force through P/Supt.
Jose Ramon Salido made a
Request for Laboratory
Examination addressed to
the PNP Crime Laboratory
Office, Camp Crame,
Quezon City;
4. That the specimen
submitted for examination
were duly received by the
PNP Crime Laboratory
Office, Camp Crame,
Quezon City as evidenced
by the stamp mark at the
lower left portion of the
Request for Laboratory
Examination;
5. That the PNP Crime
Laboratory Office through
Police Inspector Abraham
Verde Tecson conducted an
examination on the
specimen submitted;
6. That per examination, the
specimen submitted for
examination gave positive
result for the test of
Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride;
7. That after examination of
the specimen submitted,
the PNP Crime Laboratory
Office through the Forensic
Chemist prepared the Initial
Laboratory Report; and
8. The qualification of the
Forensic Chemist.
xxxx
With the stipulation entered into by the
prosecution and the defense, the
testimony of the Forensic Chemist, P/Insp.
Abraham Verde Tecson, is dispensed with.
[5]
A joint trial of the two (2) cases thereafter
ensued.
The following facts were related by
prosecution witnesses who comprised
mainly of members of the buy-bust team.
Based on an informant's
tip, Barangay Captain Doromal
of Barangay Pitogo called up the Makati
City Police Station Anti-Illegal Drug Special
Operation - Sub Task Force, to disclose the
illegal sale of drugs of an alias Beng, who
was later identified as appellant
in Barangay Pinagkaisahan, Makati City. A
buy-bust operation was conducted. Makati
Anti Drug Abuse Council (MADAC)
operative Gerardo Farias (Farias)
acted as the poseur-buyer and was backed
up by PO2 Rodrigo Igno (PO2 Igno), as the
team leader, PO2 Herbert Ibias, and PO2
Tolentino, among others. Two (2) One
Hundred Pesos bills were prepared. PO2
Igno placed the markings "C4" above the
serial numbers of the bills.[6] Upon
reaching Danlig Street in Makati City at
around 9:00 p.m., Farias and the
informant waited at a nearby store for
appellant. When the informant called on
appellant, the latter came out of her
house, which was situated at the corner of
Danlig and Tolentino Streets. The
informant introduced Farias to
appellant as the buyer of shabu. Appellant
even asked informant if it was "okay" to
transact with Farias, to which the
informant answered "okay yan mare,
kaibigan ko yan." Farias gave Two
Hundred Pesos (P200.00) to appellant,
who then put the money inside her right
pocket while drawing a plastic sachet from
her left pocket. Appellant handed the
plastic sachet to Farias. Thereafter,
Farias gave the pre-arranged signal of
taking off his cap. PO2 Igno and Tolentino
immediately approached and arrested
appellant. PO2 Tolentino asked appellant
to empty her pockets, and the buy-bust
money as well as another plastic sachet
were recovered from her. The plastic
sachet containing shabu was marked with
appellant's initials "PBT" at the crime
scene by Farias. Appellant was then
brought to the Makati Police Headquarters.
[7]
The plastic sachets
containingshabu were brought to the
Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory for examination.[8]Chemistry
Report Number D-959-03 revealed that
the specimens submitted yielded positive
results for shabu.[9]
As the lone witness for the defense,
appellant testified that she was inside her
house on 30 July 2003 in Danlig Street
when several men, who claimed to be
from the barangay, knocked on the door
and eventually forced their way into her
house. Appellant was dragged out of the
house and forcefully boarded her into a
vehicle. She was brought to
the barangay hall of Barangay Pitogo
where she was brought inside a room,
frisked, and asked to undress. Despite the
fact that nothing was recovered from her,
appellant was brought to the PNP-Criminal
Investigation Division where she
underwent a drug test. Appellant denied
selling shabu and any knowledge of a buy-
bust operation.[10]
After trial, the RTC rendered a decision
finding appellant guilty of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 in Criminal Case No. 03-2795 and
sentencing her to suffer life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. She was
however acquitted of the charge for
violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act. No. 9165 in Criminal Case
No. 03-2796, for insufficiency of evidence.
The trial court found the prosecution's
evidence as sufficient to prove the
elements for illegal sale ofshabu.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed
the judgment of the RTC. The Court of
Appeals vouched for the credibility of the
prosecution witnesses and rejected
appellant's defense of denial, holding the
same as inherently weak.
In appealing her conviction before this
Court, appellant opted to adopt the same
arguments in her Brief before the Court of
Appeals. To prove that her guilt was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt,
appellant challenges the credibility of the
testimony of prosecution witnesses,
particularly their contradicting statements
regarding whether a surveillance was
conducted prior to the buy-bust operation
or not. Appellant then questions the non-
presentation of the forensic chemist to
corroborate the alleged findings that the
substance examined was found positive
for shabu. Finally, appellant disputes the
presumption that the MADAC operative
had regularly performed their duties.
Appellant claims that certain regulations
providing for the chain of custody of
seized drugs were not followed. There was
no physical inventory nor a photograph of
the drugs allegedly confiscated from
appellant.
On the contrary, the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) maintains that appellant's
guilt was proven beyond reasonable
doubt. The prosecution was able to prove
that appellant was arrested in a buy-bust
operation and she was positively identified
as the person who sold the illegal drugs to
theposeur-buyer. The OSG justifies the
alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies
of prosecution witnesses as being minor or
trivial which did not detract from the fact
that appellant was caught in flagrante
delicto as a result of the buy-bust
operation. The non-presentation of the
forensic chemist, the OSG adds, is
immaterial because the Chemistry Report
revealed that the specimens were found
positive for shabu and such evidence was
not contested by the defense. With
respect to the chain of custody, the OSG
argues that the contraband items were
initialled by Farias in appellant's
presence and the Chemistry Report
confirmed that they were positive
for shabu. The incident was likewise
documented in the Spot Report.
 What did you do after the informant called
After scouring the records of this case, we the accused?
do not find any cogent reason to depart
from the ruling of the Court of Appeals. WITNESS:
Otherwise stated, we agree with the lower
courts' finding that the guilt of the Alias Beng went out of their house, sir.
appellant was established beyond
reasonable doubt. PROS. BAGAOISAN:

In every prosecution for illegal sale What happened after Alias Beng went out?
of shabu under Section 5, Art. II of
Republic Act No. 9165 or the WITNESS:
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002," the following elements must be I was introduced by the informant to her,
sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the sir.
buyer and the seller, the object and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the PROS. BAGAOISAN:
thing sold and the payment therefor.[11] All
these elements were duly established. How were you introduced to the accused?
Appellants were caught in flagrante
delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust WITNESS:
operation conducted by MADAC
operatives. That I am interested of shabu and then I
am going to buy shabu, sir.
At the outset, we affirm the findings of the
trial court with respect to the credibility of PROS. BAGAOISAN:
the prosecution witnesses considering that
the trial court had the opportunity to And, what did the accused reply, if any?
observe the conduct and demeanor of the
witnesses during the trial. It is a WITNESS:
fundamental rule that findings of the trial
courts which are factual in nature and Alias Beng asked the informant if I am
which involve credibility are accorded okay, sir.
respect when no glaring errors; gross
misapprehension of facts; or speculative, PROS. BAGAOISAN:
arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions
can be gathered from such findings.[12] And, what was the reply of the informant if
there was any?
The poseur-buyer, MADAC operative
Farias, positively testified that the sale WITNESS:
of shabu took place and appellant was
caught red-handed, thus: The informant replied: "Okay yan mare,
kaibigan ko yan."
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, how long did you wait for the
accused? What happened next after that?

WITNESS: WITNESS:

We just waited for seconds and then we
saw alias Beng because the informant
called her, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
Now, where did the accused come from?
I gave the Two Hundred Pesos to Alias
Beng and she took it from me, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, what did the accused do after she
received the buy bust money?

WITNESS: WITNESS:

Their house is located at the corner of
Danlig and Tolentino Streets and their
fence is quite low, so the informant just
called her, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
She put the money inside her right pocket
and then she drew a plastic sachet in her
left pocket, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
And, what did she do with the plastic
sachet which she drew from her pocket?
WITNESS:
She handed to me the plastic sachet and
then she was as if examining it and then I
gave the pre-arranged signal, sir.[13]
While it was only Farias who testified on
the consummated sale transaction, PO2
Igno corroborated Farias statements in
the Joint Affidavit of Arrest[14] he executed
together with Farias and PO2 Tolentino.
PO2 Igno confirmed that Farias was
able to buy shabu from appellant.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
Now, Mr. Witness, in connection with the
buy bust operation that you conducted
against Bertha Presas y Tolentino do you
recall having executed an affidavit of
arrest?
WITNESS:
Yes sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
If that affidavit of arrest will be shown to
you, will you be able to identify the same?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
I am showing, Mr. Witness, as Affidavit of
Arrest consisting of two pages, will you
please go over the same and tell us what
relation does this have to affidavit of
arrest operation conducted against the
accused?
WITNESS:
This is the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
There is a signature above the name
Rodrigo Igno, whose signature is this?
WITNESS:
That is my signature, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
May I request, Your Honor, that this
Affidavit of Arrest be market as Exhibit J,
the signature of the witness, PO2 Igno as
Exhibit J-2. Earlier we have marked the
signature of MADAC Gerardo Farias as
Exhibit J-1. Do you still confirm and affirm
the truthfulness of your allegations in this
affidavit?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
Now, you mentioned in your affidavit that
the poseur buyer was able to
buyshabu from the accused in this case,
do your (sic) confirm that statement?
WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
PROS. BAGAOISAN:
Were you able to see the shabu subject
matter of the sale transaction?[15]
Chemistry Report No. D-959-03 confirmed
that a qualitative examination conducted
on the specimens inside the plastic
sachets seized from appellant yielded
positive result for Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu.[16]
Appellant harps on the non-presentation of
the forensic chemist thereby rendering the
laboratory findings as hearsay evidence.
The Court of Appeals correctly pointed out
that appellant agreed to dispense with the
testimony of the forensic chemist, as
stipulated in the Pre-Trial Order, thus:
Appellant cannot now contend that the
non-presentation of the Forensic Chemist
was fatal to the prosecution's case. A
perusal of the records of the instant case
clearly reveals that the Pre-trial Order
dated 9 September 2003 issued by the
court a quo was regular on its face. In fact,
the defense counsel and appellant herself
had affixed their respective signatures on
the Minutes thereof. As such, the
stipulations therein are valid and binding
between the parties and become judicial
admissions of the facts so stipulated.[17]
Assuming arguendo that there is no
stipulation of facts, the non-presentation
of the forensic chemist is not fatal to the
prosecution's case. In People v. Quebral,
[18]
this Court explained:
The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs
cases constitutes the dangerous drug
itself. This means that proof beyond doubt
of the identity of the prohibited drug is
essential.
Besides, corpus delicti has nothing to do
with the testimony of the laboratory
analyst. In fact, this Court has ruled that
the report of an official forensic chemist
regarding a recovered prohibited drug
enjoys the presumption of regularity in its
preparation. Corollarily, under Section 44
of Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court,
entries in official records made in the
performance of official duty are prima
facie evidence of the facts they state.[19]
Appellant's defense, which is predicated
on a bare denial, deserves scant
consideration in light of the positive
testimonies of MADAC operatives.
Appellant failed to impute any ill-motives
on their part to falsely testify against her.
Hence, their testimonies and actuations
enjoy the presumption of regularity.
Lastly, appellant contends that the
prosecution failed to prove the crucial link
in the chain of custody of shabu when the
MADAC operatives failed to observe the
procedure regarding the custody of seized
drugs.
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the
custody and disposition of the confiscated
illegal drugs, to wit:
(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;
This rule was elaborated in Section 21(a),
Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, viz:
a) 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:
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.
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, does not automatically render
accused's arrest illegal or the items seized
from him inadmissible. A proviso was
added in the implementing rules 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." The same
provision also states that it must still be
shown that there exists justifiable grounds
and proof that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence have
been preserved.[20]
It is no longer necessary to dwell on the
justifiable reasons that might have been
offered for the failure to comply with the
outlined procedure since it was never
asked nor raised as an issue by the
defense during the trial. Pertinently, it is
the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items
which must be proven to establish
the corpus delicti.
In this case, the failure on the part of the
MADAC operatives to take photographs
and make an inventory of the drugs seized
from the appellant was not fatal because
the prosecution was able to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary value of the said
illegal drugs. The concurrence of all
elements of the illegal sale of shabu was
proven by the prosecution. The chain of
custody did not appear to be broken. The
recovery and handling of the seized drugs
were satisfactorily established. Farias
was able to put the necessary markings on
the plastic sachet of shabu bought from
appellant immediately after the
consummation of the drug sale. This was
done in the presence of appellant and the
other operatives, and while in the crime
scene. The seized items were then
brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination on the same day.[21] Both
prosecution witnesses were able to
identify and explain said markings in
court.
Based on the foregoing, it has been
established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt that appellants sold shabu. Under
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, the penalty of life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to
Ten million pesos (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 trial court, as
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly
imposed the penalty of life imprisonment
and a fine of P500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 22
October 2007 of the Court of Appeals in
CA G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02361, convicting
appellant for violation of Section 5, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing
her to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00 is herebyAFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Corona, C.J., (Chairperson), Velasco,
Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, and Del
Castillo, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 203984 June 18,
2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee,
vs.
MEDARIO CALANTIAO y
DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This is an appeal from the January 1 7,
2012 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04069, affirming in
toto the July 23, 2009 Decision2 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City,
Branch 127, finding accused-appellant
Medario Calantiao y Dimalanta (Calantiao)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 11, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On November 13, 2003, Calantiao was
charged before the RTC of violation of
Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165 in an Information,3 the pertinent
portion of which reads: That on or about
the 11th day of November, 2003 in
Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without any authority of law, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession, custody
and control two (2) bricks of dried
marijuana fruiting tops with a total weight
of 997 .9 grams, knowing the same to be a
dangerous drug.
The facts, as synthesized by the RTC and
adopted by the Court of Appeals, are as
follows:
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION
On November 13, 2003[,] at around 5:30 x
x x in the afternoon, while PO1 NELSON
MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ
were on duty, a certain EDWIN LOJERA
arrived at their office and asked for police
assistance regarding a shooting incident.
Per report of the latter, it appears that
while driving a towing truck and traversing
along EDSA, Balintawak, Quezon City, he
had a traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a white
taxi cab prompting him to follow said
vehicle until they reached along 8th
Avenue Street corner C-3 Road, Caloocan
City. Thereat, the passengers of said taxi
cab, one of them was accused Calantiao,
alighted and fired their guns. Surprised,
Lojera could not do anything but
continued his driving until he reached a
police station nearby where he reported
the incident.
The police officers on duty then were PO1
NELSON MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO
RAMIREZ. PO1 Mariano testified that they
immediately responded to said complaint
by proceeding to 5th Avenue corner 8th
Street, Caloocan City where they found
the white taxi. While approaching said
vehicle, two armed men alighted
therefrom, fired their guns towards them
(police officers) and ran away. PO1
Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them
but they were subdued. PO1 Mariano
recovered from Calantiao a black bag
containing two (2) bricks of dried
marijuana fruiting tops and a magazine of
super 38 stainless with ammos, while PO3
Ramirez recovered from Calantiaos
companion [a] .38 revolver.
The suspects and the confiscated items
were then turned over to SPO3 PABLO
TEMENA, police investigator at Bagong
Barrio Police Station for investigation.
Thereat, PO1 Mariano marked the bricks of
marijuana contained in a black bag with
his initials, "NM". Thereafter, said
specimen were forwarded to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis.
The result of the examination conducted
by P/SINSP. JESSSE DELA ROSA revealed
that the same was positive for marijuana,
a dangerous drug.
The foregoing testimony of PO1 MARIANO
was corroborated by PO3 RAMIREZ who
testified that he personally saw those
bricks of marijuana confiscated from the
accused. He confirmed that he was with
PO1 Mariano when they apprehended said
accused and his companion and testified
that while PO1 Mariano recovered from the
accused a black bag containing marijuana,
on his part, he confiscated from accuseds
companion a .38 revolver.
MR. CRISENDO AMANSEC, the driver of the
taxi where the suspects boarded was also
presented in open court and testified as to
what he knows about the incident. He
confirmed that on that date, two (2)
persons boarded on his taxi and upon
reaching C-3 Road, they alighted and fired
three (3) shots and ran away.
Aside from the oral testimonies of the
witnesses, the prosecution also offered the
following documentary evidence to boost
their charge against the accused:
Exh. "A" Request for Laboratory
Examination dated November 12,
2003
Exh. "B" Physical Sciences Report
No. D-1423-03 dated November 12,
2003
Exh. "C-1" Picture of First brick of
marijuana fruiting tops
Exh. "C-2" Picture of Second brick
of marijuana fruiting tops
Exh. "D" Referral Slip dated
November 12, 2003
Exh. "E" Pinagsamang
Sinumpaang Salaysay dated
November 12, 2003 of PO3
Eduardo Ramirez and PO1 Nelson
Mariano
Exh. "E-1" Their respective
signatures
Exh. "F" Sinumpaang Salaysay of
Crisendo Amansec (Erroneously
marked as Exh. "E")
EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE
The accused offered a different version of
the story. According to his testimony, this
instant case originated from a traffic
mishap where the taxi he and his
companion Rommel Reyes were riding
almost collided with another car. Reyes
then opened the window and made a "fuck
you" sign against the persons on board of
that car. That prompted the latter to chase
them and when they were caught in a
traffic jam, PO1 Nelson Mariano, one of the
persons on board of that other car
alighted and kicked their taxi. Calantiao
and Reyes alighted and PO1 Mariano
slapped the latter and uttered, "Putang ina
mo bakit mo ako pinakyu hindi mo ba ako
kilala?" Said police officer poked his gun
again[st] Reyes and when Calantiao tried
to grab it, the gun fired. Calantiao and
Reyes were then handcuffed and were
brought to the police station. Thereat,
they were subjected to body frisking and
their wallets and money were taken. PO1
Mariano then prepared some documents
and informed them that they will be
charged for drugs. A newspaper
containing marijuana was shown to them
and said police officer told them that it
would be sufficient evidence against them.
They were detained and subjected to
medical examination before they were
submitted for inquest at the prosecutors
office.4
Ruling of the RTC
On July 23, 2009, the RTC rendered its
Decision giving credence to the
prosecutions case. The dispositive portion
of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
judgment is hereby rendered declaring
accused MEDARIO CALANTIAO y
DIMALANTA, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT of the offense of Violation of
Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165, for
illegally possessing997.9 grams of
marijuana fruiting tops. Henceforth, this
Court hereby sentences him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Php500,000.00).5
In convicting Calantiao, the RTC held that
the illegal drug seized was admissible in
evidence as it was discovered during a
body search after Calantiao was caught in
flagrante delicto of possessing a gun and
firing at the police officers. Moreover, the
RTC found all the elements of the offense
to have been duly established by the
prosecution.6
Aggrieved, Calantiao appealed7 his
conviction to the Court of Appeals,
assigning the following errors:
I
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED
IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND
 REASONABLE DOUBT FOR
VIOLATION OF SECTION 11,
ARTICLE II, REPUBLIC ACT NO.
9165, NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FACT THAT THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED
ITEMS ARE INADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE.
II
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT DESPITE THE
ARRESTING OFFICERS PATENT
NON-COMPLIANCE WITHTHE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER
CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS
DRUGS.
III
THE COURT A QUOGRAVELY ERRED
IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-
APPELLANT DESPITE THE
PROSECUTIONS FAILURE TO PROVE
THE PROPER CHAIN OF CUSTODY
OF THE SEIZED DANGEROUS
DRUGS.8
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The Court of Appeals found no reason to
overturn Calantiaos conviction. It found
that there was sufficient reason to justify a
warrantless arrest, as the police officers
were acting on a legitimate complaint and
had a reasonable suspicion that the
persons identified at the scene were the
perpetrators of the offense. Likewise, the
Court of Appeals held that the search and
subsequent seizure of the marijuana in
question was lawful and valid, being
incidental to a lawful arrest.9 Finding that
all the elements of the charge of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs to be
present and duly proven,10 the Court of
Appeals, on January 17, 2012,
promulgated its Decision, affirming in toto
the RTCs ruling.
Undaunted, Calantiao is now before this
Court praying for an acquittal, adding the
following arguments in support of his
position:
First, the plain view doctrine is not an
exception to a search incident to a valid
warrantless arrest.
xxxx
Second, Calantiao did not waive the
inadmissibility of the seized items.
xxxx
Finally, the seized items custodial chain is
broken.11
In essence, Calantiao is questioning the
admissibility of the marijuana found in his
possession, as evidence against him on
the grounds of either it was discovered via
an illegal search, or because its custodial
chain was broken.
Ruling of this Court
This Court finds no merit in Calantiaos
arguments.
Search and Seizure of
Marijuana valid
This Court cannot subscribe to Calantiaos
contention that the marijuana in his
possession cannot be admitted as
evidence against him because it was
illegally discovered and seized, not having
been within the apprehending officers
"plain view."12
Searches and seizure incident to a lawful
arrest are governed by Section 13, Rule
126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, to wit:
Section 13.Search incident to lawful
arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an
offense without a search warrant.
The purpose of allowing a warrantless
search and seizure incident to a lawful
arrest is "to protect the arresting officer
from being harmed by the person
arrested, who might be armed with a
concealed weapon, and to prevent the
latter from destroying evidence within
reach."13 It is therefore a reasonable
exercise of the States police power to
protect (1) law enforcers from the injury
that may be inflicted on them by a person
they have lawfully arrested; and (2)
evidence from being destroyed by the
arrestee. It seeks to ensure the safety of
the arresting officers and the integrity of
the evidence under the control and within
the reach of the arrestee.
In People v. Valeroso,14 this Court had the
occasion to reiterate the permissible reach
of a valid warrantless search and seizure
incident to a lawful arrest, viz:
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable
for the arresting officer to search the
person arrested in order to remove any
weapon that the latter might use in order
to resist arrest or effect his escape.
Otherwise, the officers safety might well
be endangered, and the arrest itself
frustrated. In addition, it is entirely
reasonable for the arresting officer to
search for and seize any evidence on the
arrestees person in order to prevent its
concealment or destruction.
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes
both the duty and the right of the
apprehending officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person
of the suspect, but also in the permissible
area within the latters reach. Otherwise
stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of
evidence or dangerous weapons either on
the person of the one arrested or within
the area of his immediate control. The
phrase "within the area of his immediate
control" means the area from within which
he might gain possession of a weapon or
destructible evidence. A gun on a table or
in a drawer in front of one who is arrested
can be as dangerous to the arresting
officer as one concealed in the clothing of
the person arrested. (Citations omitted.)
In Valeroso, however, the Court held that
the evidence searched and seized from
him could not be used against him
because they were discovered in a room,
different from where he was being
detained, and was in a locked cabinet.
Thus, the area searched could not be
considered as one within his immediate
control that he could take any weapon or
destroy any evidence against him.15
In the case at bar, the marijuana was
found in a black bag in Calantiaos
possession and within his immediate
control. He could have easily taken any
weapon from the bag or dumped it to
destroy the evidence inside it. As the
black bag containing the marijuana was in
Calantiaos possession, it was within the
permissible area that the apprehending
officers could validly conduct a
warrantless search.
Calantiaos argument that the marijuana
cannot be used as evidence against him
because its discovery was in violation of
the Plain View Doctrine, is misplaced.
The Plain View Doctrine is actually the
exception to the inadmissibility of
evidence obtained in a warrantless search
incident to a lawful arrest outside the
suspects person and premises under his
immediate control. This is so because
"[o]bjects in the plain view of an officer
who has the right to be in the position to
have that view are subject to seizure and
may be presented as evidence."16 "The
doctrine is usually applied where a police
officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object x x x. [It] serves to
supplement the prior justification
whether it be a warrant for another object,
hot pursuit, search incident to lawful
arrest, or some other legitimate reason for
being present unconnected with a search
directed against the accused and
permits the warrantless seizure."17
The Plain View Doctrine thus finds no
applicability in Calantiaos situation
because the police officers purposely
searched him upon his arrest. The police
officers did not inadvertently come across
the black bag, which was in Calantiaos
possession; they deliberately opened it, as
part of the search incident to Calantiaos
lawful arrest.
Inventory and Chain of
Custody of Evidence
Calantiao claims that even if the search
and seizure were validly effected, the
marijuana is still inadmissible as evidence
against him for failure of the apprehending
officers to comply with the rules on chain
of custody, as the item was marked at the
police station.18
The pertinent provisions of Republic Act
No. 9165 provide as follows:
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[.]
Its Implementing Rules and Regulations
state:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of
Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors
and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or
Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall
take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team
having initial custody and control of
the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof; Provided, that the
physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of
the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided,
further, that non-compliance with
these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and 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.)
This Court has held that the failure to
strictly comply with Section 21, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, such as
immediately marking seized drugs, will not
automatically impair the integrity of chain
of custody because what is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as these would be utilized in
the determination of the guilt or innocence
of the accused.19
Section 21 and its IRR do not even
mention "marking." What they require are
(1) physical inventory, and (2) taking of
photographs. As this Court held in People
v. Ocfemia20:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its
implementing rule do not expressly
specify is the matter of "marking" of the
seized items in warrantless seizures to
ensure that the evidence seized upon
apprehension is the same evidence
subjected to inventory and photography
when these activities are undertaken at
the police station rather than at the place
of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of
custody" rule requires that the "marking"
of the seized items to truly ensure that
they are the same items that enter the
chain and are eventually the ones offered
in evidence should be done (1) in the
presence of the apprehended violator (2)
immediately upon confiscation.
The prosecution was able to establish the
chain of custody of the seized marijuana
from the time the police officers
confiscated it, to the time it was turned
over to the investigating officer, up to the
time it was brought to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination.21 This Court
has no reason to overrule the RTC and the
Court of Appeals, which both found the
chain of custody of the seized drugs to
have not been broken so as to render the
marijuana seized from Calantiao
inadmissible in evidence.
Furthermore, unless it can be shown that
there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering of
the evidence, the presumption that the
integrity of the evidence has been
preserved will remain. The burden of
showing the foregoing to overcome the
presumption that the police officers
handled the seized drugs with regularity,
and that they properly discharged their
duties is on Calantiao. Unfortunately,
Calantiao failed to discharge such
burden.22
It is worthy to note that these arguments
were only raised by Calantiao on his
appeal. He himself admits this.23 His
theory, from the very beginning, was that
he did not do it, and that he was being
framed for having offended the police
officers. Simply put, his defense tactic was
one of denial and frame-up. However,
those defenses have always been frowned
upon by the Court, to wit:
The defenses of denial and frame-up have
been invariably viewed by this Court with
disfavor for it can easily be concocted and
is a common and standard defense ploy in
prosecutions for violation of Dangerous
Drugs Act. In order to prosper, the
defenses of denial and frame-up must be
proved with strong and convincing
evidence. In the cases before us, appellant
failed to present sufficient evidence in
support of his claims. Aside from his self-
serving assertions, no plausible proof was
presented to bolster his allegations.24
Hence, as Calantiao failed to show clear
and convincing evidence that the
apprehending officers were stirred by illicit
motive or failed to properly perform their
duties, their testimonies deserve full faith
and credit.25
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
Court hereby AFFIRMS the January 17,
2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04069.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. MARTIN S.
BERSAMIN VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned
to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice
G.R. No. 191267 June 26,
2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-
Appellee,
vs.
MONICA MENDOZA Y
TRINIDAD, Accused-Appellant.
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal by Monica Mendoza y
Trinidad (accused-appellant) from the
Decision1 dated August 28, 2009 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 03426. The CA affirmed the
Decision2 rendered by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 64, Makati City in
Criminal Case Nos. 04-2068 and 04-2069
convicting accused-appellant of violating
Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002.
The two separate informations filed
against accused-appellant read thus:
Criminal Case No. 04-2068:
"That on or about the 15th day of May
2004 in the City of Makati,Metro Manila,
Philippines, and a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, without being
authorized by law, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,
distribute and transport
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu),
weighing zero point zero three (0.03)
gram, which is a dangerous drug, in
consideration of two hundred (Php200.00)
pesos, in violation of the above-cited law."
Criminal Case No. 04-2069:
"That on or about the 15th day of May
2004 in the City of Makati, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without corresponding license or
prescription, did then and there willfully,
feloniously have in his possession, direct
custody and control zero point zero eight
(0.08) gram of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a
dangerous drug, in violation of the above-
cited law."
After arraignment and pre-trial were
conducted by the trial court, a joint trial on
the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented as witnesses
PO2 Joseph dela Cruz (PO2 dela Cruz) and
PO2 Wilfredo Sangel (PO2 Sangel), both
operatives of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operations Task Force (SAID-
SOTF).
PO2 dela Cruz testified that on May 15,
2004 at about 8:15 in the evening, their
confidential informant arrrived at their
office reporting that a certain alias Monica,
who turned out to be accused-appellant,
was involved in the rampant sale of illegal
drugs along PNR South Compound, Brgy.
Pio del Pilar, Makati City. Their Action
Officer, SPO4 Arsenio Mangulabnan
formed a buy-bust team led by SPO1 Jose
Magallanes to effect the arrest of accused-
appellant. A briefing was conducted
regarding the anti-narcotics operation and
PO2 dela Cruz was designated as poseur-
buyer. He was tasked to buy Php200.00
worth of shabu from accused-appellant.
Two (2) pieces of one hundred peso bills
were provided and marked with "AMM" for
use in the buy-bust operation.
Coordination with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was made
and PDEA Control No. 150504-02 was
given to the team. The team then
proceeded to the area of operation, i.e., at
the PNR South Compound, Brgy, Pio del
Pilar, Makati City to conduct the buy-bust
operation.
PO2 dela Cruz further testified that upon
arrival at the said area the informant
accompanied him to where accused-
appellant was. The rest of the team
positioned themselves strategically within
the perimeter. Thereafter the informant
introduced him to accused-appellant as a
person in need of shabu. At this instance,
he conveyed his intentions of buying two
hundred (Php200.00) pesos worth of
shabu to accused-appellant. He then gave
the Php200.00 pesos buy-bust money to
accused-appellant who in turn, gave one
plastic sachet containing suspected shabu
to him. The transaction having been
consummated, he then made a motion of
giving a high five to accused-appellant
which was the pre-arranged signal for the
rest of the back-up team. Operations back-
up PO2 Sangel then approached the area
of transaction, introduced himself as a
police officer and placed accused-
appellant under arrest. Accused-appellant
was apprised of the nature of the arrest
and of her constitutional rights.
PO2 dela Cruz continued that at the area
of transaction, a search conducted after
the arrest which resulted in the recovery
of the buy-bust money and five (5) other
plastic sachets containing suspected
shabu. He was just very near PO2 Sangel
when the sachets of shabu were taken
from accused-appellant. He accordingly
marked the pieces of evidence recovered
from accused-appellant. Likewise marked
was the shabu subject matter of the sale
transaction. Accused-appellant was
thereafter brought to the office of the
SAID-SOTF, where she was turned over to
the investigator on duty. Afterwards, the
items seized were brought to the PNOC
Crime Laboratory Office for examination.
The laboratory examination on the
specimens submitted yielded positive
result for the presence of a dangerous
drug Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. He
maintained that the operation was
properly coordinated with the PDEA.
PO2 Sangel corroborated the testimony of
PO2 dela Cruz mainly with respect to the
buy-bust operation against herein
accused-appellant. He declared that he
was about seven (7) to ten (10) meters
away from the place of transaction. After
the pre-arranged signal was given by PO2
dela Cruz, he, together with the team,
proceeded to the accused-appellant to
arrest her. After accused-appellant was
arrested, she was ordered to empty her
short pants and five (5) pieces of plastic
sachets containing shabu were found and
confiscated together with the marked
money in the amount of Php200.00.
Thereafter, PO2 dela Cruz placed the
marking on the seized items at the place
of transaction. The accused-appellant was
then brought to the SAID-SOTF of the
Makati Police for investigation while the
seized items were brought to the PNP
Crime Laboratory Office for laboratory
examination.
Accused-appellant for her part, denied the
charges against her. She denied that she
was caught selling shabu and that she was
caught in possession of the same. She
maintained that on May 15, 2004 at
around 4:00 o"clock in the afternoon, she
was at the back of her house at PNR
Compound, P. Medina Street, Brgy. Pio del
Pilar, Makati City hanging clothes when a
kid named Totoy, told her that police
officers were looking for her. Upon learning
that police officers were looking for her
she went home. There she saw PO2
Sangel together with other police officers.
She knew PO2 Sangel because her live-in
partner would give half of his earnings to
his dispatcher the same to be given to
PO2 Sangel otherwise, the latter would not
allow them to park their vehicles for
passengers. She approached PO2 Sangel
and asked if they needed something from
her. PO2 Sangel told her to go with them.
The accused-appellant dressed up and
went with the policemen thinking that the
reason she was asked to go with them
because of the murder case of Jun Riles
filed against Jonathan Lesaca and Alfredo
Lesaca before the RTC (Branch 138) where
she was a star witness.
Accused-appellant was brought to the
office of the Drug Enforcement Unit (DEU).
At the office of the DEU, Bobot
Mangulabnan talked to her. Bobot
Mangulabnan told her that she was
stubborn as he once told her not to
meddle with the case of her friend Jun
Riles or else something will happen to her.
She was then asked if she knew Edwin
Kerabu (Kerabu) and she said she knew
him because he was her neighbor. She
was asked if she knew where to find
Kerabu. She told them that she usually
sees this Kerabu in front of the
"binggohan." Afterwards she was brought
to the place where she was referring to.
Accused-appellant was left inside the
vehicle for about thirty (30) minutes and
thereafter she saw the police officers with
Kerabu. He was brought inside the vehicle.
There Kerabu was asked if he had shabu
and he replied that he did not have any.
He was frisked and the police officers were
able to recover from his pocket white
substance suspected to be shabu.
Accused-appellant and Kerabu were both
brought back to the office of the DEU.
At the DEU, accused-appellant Monica
Mendoza wanted to go home but she was
not permitted by the police officers. She
was made to stay and she was surprised
that the DEU filed charges against her.
She was brought to a place where she
underwent drug testing. She was made to
urinate in a bottle. After the drug test, she
was brought back to the office of the DEU
where she was detained. She was then
brought to the fiscal's office where she
learned of the charges filed against her. At
the fiscal's office she was made to sign a
document.
The RTC, found the evidence of the
prosecution sufficient to prove the guilt of
accused-appellant for the crimes charged
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, judgment
was rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 04-2068,
the accused Monica Mendoza y
Trinidad is found GUILTY of the
charge for violation of Section 5,
Article II. R.A. No. 9165 and
sentences her to suffer life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(P500,000.00);
2. In Criminal Case No. 04-2069,
the accused Monica Mendoza y
Trinidad is found GUILTY of the
charge for violation of Section 11,
Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and is
hereby sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years
and one (1) day as minimum to
fourteen (14) years and one (1) day
as maximum, pursuant to the
Indeterminate Sentence Law and to
pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00).
Accused-appellant appealed the trial
court's decision to the CA, where she
raised a lone assigned error, to wit:
"THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
ADMITTING IN EVIDENCE THE SEIZED
DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE BEING THE
PRODUCTS OF AN UNLAWFUL ARREST"
The CA, in a Decision promulgated on
August 28, 2009, dismissed the appeal
and affirmed in toto the trial court's
convictions.
Hence, the present appeal.
Again, accused-appellant interposes the
same lone assigned error she raised
before the CA.
We dismiss the appeal.
The Court finds the prosecutor's evidence
credible and sufficient to convict the
accused-appellant of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs and possession of the
same in violation of Section 5 and Section
11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165,
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.
It is significant to reiterate and emphasize
that the elements necessary for the
prosecution of illegal sale of drugs, like
shabu, were convincingly established.
These 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 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 evidence of corpus delicti.3
After a thorough and painstaking review of
evidence on record, the Court affirms the
conviction of accused-appellant. Indeed,
the prosecution has presented sufficient
proof of her guilt beyond reasonable
doubt: that on May 15, 2004, PO2 dela
Cruz, the designated poseur-buyer in the
buy-bust operation was able to purchase
from the accused-appellant 0.03 gram of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or
shabu, in consideration of Php200.00
pesos. The buy-bust money was recovered
from accused-appellant's possession after
she was arrested.
The PNP crime laboratory affirmed that the
white crystalline substance contained in
the plastic sachet bought from accused-
appellant was Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu. The plastic sachet
marked with "MMT" (which stands for
Monica Mendoza y Trinidad) was identified
to be the same plastic sachet that he
purchased from the accused-appellant.
The marking in the said sachet bought
from accused-appellant are known to bear
the same marking existing in the plastic
sachet examined by the forensic chemist.
Proof that the plastic sachet bought from
accused-appellant and the one delivered
from laboratory examination are one and
the same.
PO2 dela Cruz gave a detailed account on
how the buy-bust operation against
accused-appellant took place; that is, from
the initial transaction to the eventual
delivery of the shabu.
Accused-appellant alleged that the trial
court erred in appreciating the evidence
presented by the prosecution as they were
seized as a result of an unlawful arrest.
She insists that a valid warrant should
have been secured first before they
proceeded to arrest her.
This argument is totally faulty and is
without even an iota of credibility. The
warrantless arrest conducted on accused-
appellant was valid. Section 5, Rule 113 of
the Rules of Criminal Procedure
enumerates the situations when a person
may be arrested without a warrant, thus:
"SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
lawful. - A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, in his presence, the
person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an
offense;
(b) When an offense has just been
committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested
is a prisoner who has escaped from
a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgement
or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one
confinement to another."
Paragraph (a) of Section 5, is commonly
known as an in flagrante delicto arrest. For
a warrantless arrest of an accused caught
in flagrante delicto to be valid, two
requisites must concur: (1) the person to
be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is
done in the presence or within the view of
the arresting officer.4
In the instant case, the prosecution
completely and fully established that
accused-appellant was arrested in
flagrante delicto.
At any rate, accused-appellant failed to
raise any objection to the manner of her
arrest before arraignment.1wphi1 In fact,
she participated in the trial. She even took
the witness stand and testified in her own
behalf. She is now estopped from assailing
the legality of her arrest as she waived
any irregularity, if any, that may have
tainted her arrest.
Significantly, the proof of an in flagrante
delicto an-est, removes whatever
credibility there may have been about the
testimony of the accused-appellant of the
alleged circumstances that made her go
with the police to the DEU unit. Her
version that she was a frame-up victim
cannot stand against the testimony of the
police, supported by evidence of corpus
delicti.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Decision appealed from, finding accused-
appellant Monica Mendoza guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Sections
5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ before the case was assigned to the writer
Associate Justice of the opinion of the Courts Division.

WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Second Division, Chairperson
Associate Justice
Chairperson CERTIFICATION

ARTURO D. MARIANO C. DEL Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the

BRION CASTILLO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation
Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had
been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice