RA 9165 COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

PEOPLE v. Villanueva
TOPIC: RA9165; Constitutional presumption of innocence
FACTS: RTC found appellant Roger Villanueva y Huelva guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (2002), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

PO1 Rana testified that a confidential informant informed them that appellant was selling shabu. He
composed a buy bust operation team to entrap appellant with him posing as the poseur-buyer. After
marking the P100.00 bill and recording in the blotter its serial number, the team proceeded to the place.
The informant introduced him to the appellant, who asked them if they wanted to buy shabu. Appellant got
one plastic sachet from his pocket containing a white crystalline substance. After appellant received the
marked money, Rana executed the prearranged signal and the team arrested the appellant.

Appellant denied the accusations and said at the time of the crime scene, he was at home watching
television. Thereafter, two policemen knocked at the door looking for a certain person named Roger. When
he identified himself as Roger, he was immediately handcuffed and brought to the headquarters without
explanation. It was only later that he found out that he was being charged for selling shabu.

Appellant maintains that there was no entrapment and that he was arrested in his house on the night of
the alleged commission of the crime. While he admits that the resolution of the case would boil down to
the determination of who between the parties is more credible, he insists that the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty alone could not sustain a conviction; and that the selfserving
and uncorroborated testimony of PO1 Rana could not prevail over his constitutionally guaranteed
presumption of innocence.

ISSUE: WON appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II, of R.A. No.
9165.

HELD: settled is the policy of this Court, founded on reason and experience, to sustain the factual findings
of the trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to assess the
evidence before it, having had the opportunity to make an honest determination of the witnesses
deportment during the trial.
In the instant case, we find no basis to disregard the trial courts factual findings.
Indeed, in criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the
commission of the crime but likewise to establish, with the same quantum of proof, the identity of the
person or persons responsible therefor. This burden of proof does not shift to the defense but remains in
the prosecution throughout the trial

To sustain a conviction under a single prosecution witness, such testimony needs only to establish
sufficiently:
1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and
2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.
Indeed, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence.[16] In this case, PO1 Rana, being the poseur-
buyer, was the most competent person to testify on the fact of sale and he did so to the satisfaction of
both the trial court and the appellate court.

PEOPLE V. MALLILLIN
TOPIC: RA9165; Chain of Custody
FACTS: RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, a prohibited drug.

On the strength of a warrant6 of search and seizure, a team of five police officers raided the residence of
petitioner. The searchconducted in the presence of barangay kagawad Delfin Licup as well as petitioner
himself, his wife Sheila and his mother, Norma allegedly yielded two (2) plastic sachets of shabu and five
(5) empty plastic sachets containing residual morsels of the said substance. Accordingly, petitioner was
charged with violation of Section 11,7 Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Ensuing the trial, the evidence for the defense focused on the irregularity of the search and seizure
conducted by the police operatives.
Bolanos, the leader of the raiding team, narrated the search in his testimony,
Informant goes to the police, then police created a team of five and raided the residence of the petitioner.
some of the police stood outside the house to make sure that nobody flees. the search was conducted in
the bedroom of the petitioner where 5 empty sachet was found in a denim bag in one of the cabinets and
the 2 filled plastic sachet fell from 1 of the pillows.
Esternon, the one who discovered the shabu, testified that the bag was behind the Informant goes to the
police, then police created a team of five and raided the residence of the petitioner. some of the police
stood outside the house to make sure that nobody flees. the search was conducted in the bedroom of the
petitioner where 5 empty sachet was found in a denim bag in one of the cabinets and the 2 filled plastic
sachet fell from 1 of the pillows.
Esternon, the one who discovered the shabu, testified that the bag was behind the ed that all seven
sachets were delivered to the laboratory by Esternon in the afternoon of the same day that the warrant
was executed except that it was not she but rather a certain Mrs. Ofelia Garcia who received the items
from Esternon at the laboratory.
Petitioner testified that Esternon began the search of the bedroom with Licup (brngy cap) and petitioner
himself inside. However, it was momentarily interrupted when one of the police officers declared to
Bolanos that petitioners wife, Sheila, was tucking something inside her underwear. So they ordered a girl
officer to conduct the serach while everyone except esternon was asked to step out the room. Petitioner
was then asked by a police officer to buy cigarettes at a nearby store and when he returned from the
errand, he was told that nothing was found on Sheilas body. So they continued to search the bedroom,
Esternon asked to appellant to close the door then to lift the mattress then the headboard. As he was
lifting the headboard, Esternon told him the he found a shabu in the pillows.
Petitioners account in its entirety was corroborated in its material respects by Norma, barangay kagawad
Licup and Sheila in their testimonies.

ISSUE: WON petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt NO; Petitioner was acquitted

HELD: In the case at bar, several circumstances obtain which, if properly appreciated, would warrant a
conclusion different from that arrived at by the trial court and the Court of Appeals.
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of
a prohibited substance be established with moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not
authorized by law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact
of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.33 Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity
of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.34 Be that as it may, the mere fact of unauthorized
possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding
of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first
place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody requirement performs this
function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.35
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit
be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be.36 It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to
the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there
had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.37

A mere fleeting glance at the records readily raises significant doubts as to the identity of the sachets of
shabu allegedly seized from petitioner. Of the people who came into direct contact with the seized objects,
only Esternon and Arroyo testified for the specific purpose of establishing the identity of the evidence.
Gallinera, to whom Esternon supposedly handed over the confiscated sachets for recording and marking,
as well as Garcia, the person to whom Esternon directly handed over the seized items for chemical analysis
at the crime laboratory, were not presented in court to establish the circumstances under which they
handled the subject items. Any reasonable mind might then ask the question: Are the sachets of shabu
allegedly seized from petitioner the very same objects laboratory tested and offered in court as evidence?

The prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its burden of establishing the identity of the seized
items because it failed to offer not only the testimony of Gallinera and Garcia but also any sufficient
explanation for such failure. In effect, there is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the exhibits
inasmuch as it failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the exhibits, which cannot but inure to its
own detriment. This holds true not only with respect to the two filled sachets but also to the five sachets
allegedly containing morsels of shabu.
Also, contrary to what has been consistently claimed by the prosecution that the search and seizure was
conducted in a regular manner and must be presumed to be so, the records disclose a series of
irregularities committed by the police officers from the commencement of the search of petitioners house
until the submission of the seized items to the laboratory for analysis.

Moreover, Section 2144 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 clearly outlines the
post seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. In a language too plain to require a different
construction, it mandates that the officer acquiring initial custody of drugs under a search warrant must
conduct the photographing and the physical inventory of the item at the place where the warrant has been
served. Esternon deviated from this procedure. It was elicited from him that at the close of the search of
petitioners house, he brought the seized items immediately to the police station for the alleged purpose of
making a true inventory thereof, but there appears to be no reason why a true inventory could not be
made in petitioners house when in fact the apprehending team was able to record and mark the seized
items and there and then prepare a seizure receipt therefor.

PEOPLE V. ALEJANDRO
TOPIC: RA9165; Chain of Custody - Marking
FACTS: The prosecution charged the appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 before
the RTC.

Prosecutions evidence:
A confidential informant called and told him about the illegal drug activities of the appellant, alias Nog-
nog. A police team therefore conducted a buy-bust operating team. When they arrived at the place at
around 6:00 p.m., they saw the appellant sitting in front of a sarisari store. The informant introduced PO1
Mengote to the appellant as a buyer (i.e., a shabu scorer). The appellant pulled out a plastic sachet from
his right pocket and handed it to PO1 Mengote. Upon receiving the plastic sachet, PO1 Mengote made the
prearranged signal to his companions. Immediately, the other members of the buybust team approached
the appellant. They introduced themselves as police officers, recovered the buybust money from the
appellant, and arrested him. They then brought him and the confiscated items to the police station.

The defendant denied the allegations but he was still found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged. On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and held that the appellant and his counsel
entered into a stipulation of facts whereby they agreed on the admissibility of the request for laboratory
examination of the submitted specimen and on the findings of P/Insp. Gural. Hence, they cannot be
allowed to question, on appeal, the identity and integrity of the plastic sachet of shabu seized from the
appellant by members of the entrapment team. The CA added that the prosecution witnesses positively
identified the appellant as the person who handed the plastic sachet of shabu to the poseurbuyer.21

ISSUE: WON trial court erred in convicting him of the crime charged despite the prosecutions failure to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt YES; Alejandro was acquitted

HELD: The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence
by presenting the quantum of evidence required.
Reasonable Doubt on the Corpus Delicti
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 are:
(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. What is material in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs
is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence
of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually
been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction.26 In prosecutions involving
narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and proof of its
existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.27 To remove any doubt or
uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, the evidence must definitely show that the
illegal drug presented in court is the very same illicit drug actually recovered from the appellant;
otherwise, the prosecution for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails.
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately
after they are seized from the accused. Marking means the placing by the apprehending officer or the
poseurbuyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized.

In this case, it clearly appears that the apprehending team did not photograph or conduct a physical
inventory of the item seized, whether at the place of seizure or at the police station. The noncompliance
by the apprehending team with the photograph and physical inventory requirements under R.A. No. 9165
and its IRR was also evident in the testimony of another member of the buybust teams, PO1 Tan, who
corroborated PO1 Mengotes testimony on material points.

In fine, the totality of evidence presented in the present case does not support the appellants conviction
for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense. The prosecutions failure to comply with Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody requirement of this Act compromised the identity
of the item seized, leading to the failure to adequately prove the corpus delicti of the crime charged. In
accordance with the constitutional mandate that the guilt of the appellant must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt, we holdfor failure to establish the required quantum of evidencethat the
presumption of innocence must prevail and acquittal should follow as a matter of right.

PEOPLE V. ONIZA
TOPIC: Conduct of seizure operations involving dangerous drugs; custody and disposition of confiscated
drugs
FACTS: the Public Prosecutors Office of Rizal filed separate charges of possession of dangerous drugs1
before the Regional Trial Court against the accused spouses Romeo in Criminal Case 7598 and Mercy Oniza
in Criminal Case 7599. The prosecution further charged the spouses with selling dangerous drugs in
Criminal Case 7600, all allegedly in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.

Prosecutions evidence:
The police team conducted a buy-bust operation. On arrival at the place, the team members positioned
themselves at about 15 to 20 meters from where they spotted Mercy Oniza and a male companion, later
identified as her accused husband Romeo Oniza. The police informant approached Mercy and initiated the
purchase.4 He handed the two marked P100 bills to her which she in turn gave to Romeo. the latter took
out a plastic sachet of white crystalline substance from his pocket and gave it to the informant. The latter
then scratched his head as a signal for the police officers to make an arrest.

The police officers came out of concealment to arrest Mercy and Romeo.7 On seeing the police officers,
however, the two quickly ran into their house, joined by Valentino Cabarle (separately charged) who had
earlier stood nearby, and locked the door behind them. The officers rammed the door open to get in. They
apprehended Mercy, Romeo, and Valentino.8 Officer Jiro recovered four heatsealed plastic sachets believed
to contain shabu from Mercy. Officer Albarico retrieved two marked P100 bills and a similar plastic sachet
from Romeo. Officer Antonio seized an identical sachet from Valentino.

The prosecution and the defense stipulated that the specimens that PO1 Annalee R. Forro, a PNP forensic
chemical officer, examined were methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). They further stipulated,
however, that Officer Forro could not testify on the source and origin of the subject specimens that she
had examined.12 As a result, PO1 Forro did not testify and only her report was adduced by the
prosecution as evidence.

ISSUE: WON prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Romeo and Mercy were in possession of
and were selling dangerous drugs when the team of police officers arrested them

HELD: NO. Spouses Onizas are ACQUITTED.

The law prescribes certain procedures in keeping custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs like
the shabu that the police supposedly confiscated from Romeo and Mercy.
Section 21 of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 reads:
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; x x x.

Compliance with the above, especially the required physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs
in the presence of the accused, the media, and responsible government functionaries, would be clear
evidence that the police had carried out a legitimate buybust operation. Here, the prosecution was unable
to adduce such evidence, indicating that the police officers did not at all comply with prescribed
procedures. Worse, they offered no excuse or explanation at the hearing of the case for their blatant
omission of what the law required of them.

Apart from the above, the prosecution carried the burden of establishing the chain of custody of the
dangerous drugs that the police allegedly seized from the accused on the night of June 16, 2004. It should
establish the following links in that chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking,
if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court.19
Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first required link immediate
seizure and marking of the seized items in the presence of the accused and others20 namely, that (a)
there must be justifiable grounds for noncompliance with the procedures; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

The procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are not merely empty formalities these are
safeguards against abuse,23 the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.

PEOPLE V. CLIMACO
TOPIC: RA9165; Chain of Custody; Constitutional Presumption of Innocence
FACTS: After obtaining a Warrant of Arrest for illegal drugs, the buy bust operating team proceeded to the
targeted area. PO1 Ignacio just told Gomer that he would buy shabu. Gomer entered his house and took
something. When he came out, Gomer showed to PO1 Ignacio the shabu. PO1 Ignacio scratched his head
to signal the team that item was shown to him and he would execute the buying of the shabu. After Gomer
asked for the money and PO1 Ignacio gave it to him, SPO3 Samson and the rest of the team immediately
moved in to effect the arrest of the suspect. Since he was caught in the act, Gomer did not resist anymore.
The team likewise showed Gomer his warrant of arrest. PO1 Ignacio saw SPO3 Samson frisk and ask Gomer
to empty his pockets. SPO3 Samson was able to recover another plastic sachet, which was inserted
between Gomers fingers. The plastic sachet, which was the product of the buybust, and the one recovered
from Gomer were turned over to SPO4 Teofilo Royena, who turned them over to the Office of the Special
Operation Group. The plastic sachet product of the buybust was marked TRB, which means Teofilo Royena
and the letter B means Bust. While the plastic sachet recovered from Gomer was marked TRR, which
means Teofilo Royena and the letter R means Recovered.

Aside from the testimony of PO1 Alaindelon Ignacio, the following documentary exhibits were offered for
the prosecution:
(1) xxx; (4) Exhibit C1Plastic sachet with white crystalline substance with markings GSC1; (5) Exhibit
C2 Plastic sachet with white crystalline susbtance with markings GSC2 (6) xxx

ISSUE: Whether the guilt of Climaco for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, a
dangerous drug, was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD: NO Climaco is ACQUITTED.
PO1 Ignacio, in his testimony, claimed that the dangerous drugs seized from Climaco were marked by
SPO4 Teofilo Royena as TRB and TRR.15 However, the Chemistry Report submitted to the trial court
shows that the dangerous drugs examined and confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu
by the forensic chemist were marked as GSC1 and GSC2.16 Since what was seized (TRB and TRR)
by PO1 Ignacio from Climaco at the time of the buybust operation was different from the dangerous drugs
submitted (GSC1 and GSC2) to the forensic chemist for review and evaluation, the chain of custody
over the dangerous drugs was broken and the integrity of the evidence submitted to the trial court was not
preserved, casting doubt on the guilt of Climaco.

The Constitution guarantees the accuseds presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Section 14(2) of
the Bill of Rights (Article III) provides that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved.

Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction.

PEOPLE V. CLARA
TOPIC: RA 9165; Inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution
Facts: An informant went to the police office with the information that a person named Ningning was
selling drugs in 22C Salvador Drive, Balonbato, Quezon City. Consequently, the police officers formed a
buy-bus operating team. They went to the house of Ningning where Joel Clara, the uncle of Ningning, was
the one who opened the door. When the poseur-buyer, PO3 Ramos, informed him that he was going to buy
shabu, Joel asked for the payment, went upstairs to call Ningning and got the sachet of shabu, then
handed it to PO3 Ramos. Thereafter, Joel was caught and was brought to the police station while Ningning
was able to escape.

The accusedappellant contested his conviction due to the inconsistencies in the prosecutions presentation
of a supposed buybust operation, coupled with its failure to establish with certainty the chain of custody of
evidence. Inspite of the imperfect narration of events by the accused Joel, we are constrained to render a
judgment of acquittal due to the lapses of the prosecution that led to its failure to discharge the burden of
proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.
ISSUE: WON the accused appellant can be convicted despite the inconsistencies of the facts of the
prosecution
HELD: NO. In this case, the prosecution failed to overcome such presumption when it presented
inconsistent versions of an illegal sale. The clear inconsistency in the presentation of facts is fatal. It
creates doubts whether the transaction really occurred or not. Though Joels denial as a defense is weak,
such cannot relieve the prosecution the burden of presenting proof beyond reasonable doubt that an illegal
transaction actually took place.60
Inconsistencies of the prosecution witnesses referring to the events that transpired in the buybust
operation can overturn the judgment of conviction.
As to the first link of marking, the three police officers failed to agree on who among them marked the
plastic sachet, which is highly improbable if they really had a clear grasp on what really transpired on the
day of operation.
PO3 Ramos testified that he placed his marking on the small plastic sachet but recanted his previous
statement at the latter part of the examination and pointed out that it was the investigator PO1 Jimenez
who put the marking in front of him at the area of arrest.70 SPO2 Nagera in his testimony confirmed that it
was PO1 Jimenez who put marking on the plastic sachet.71 However, PO1 Jimenez in his testimony clarified
that the item confiscated were already marked by the apprehending officers when it was turned over to
him in their office.72
Likewise, they cannot seem to agree on the second link on who among them held the item confiscated
from the time of arrest and confiscation until it was turned over to the investigator and the place where it
was turned over.
The inconsistent statements of the police officers generated doubt on whether the identity of the evidence
seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to marking and inventory then given to the
Jimenez for investigation and eventually submitted by PO3 Ramos for examination by the forensic chemist.
In case of conflict between the presumption of regularity of police officers and the presumption of
innocence of the accused, we rule that the latter must prevail as the law imposes upon the prosecution the
highest degree of proof of evidence to sustain conviction.79

PEOPLE V. POSADA
TOPIC: RA9165 Chain of Custody
FACTS: the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for selling twelve (12) pieces of transparent sealed plastic sachet,
containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, convicted Accusedappellants Roger Posada (Roger)
and Emily Posada (Emily) in violation of Section 5, Art II of RA 9165.
Roger was also convicted by the same RTC in Criminal Case No. 3489 for possession of one piece of torn
plastic sachet, containing residue of a crystalline substance (allegedly shabu), a piece of small aluminum
foil, a pair of small scissors, and fifteen (15) pieces of used lighter all of which are intended to be used for
smoking or introducing dangerous drugs into the body of a person, in violation of Section 12, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165

The buy bust operating proceeded to the house of the Spouses Posada. The poseur-buyer called Emily and
told her that he will buy shabu. Emily gave PO1 Area one sachet of shabu, which she got from the coin
purse. Subsequently, Roger appeared and handed to Emily 12 plastic sachets of shabu which Emily placed
inside the coin purse. At this point, PO1 Area identified himself as a police officer while giving the signal to
his team that the buybust turned positive. He arrested Emily while Roger ran away and went inside their
house. Roger went inside his house and closed the door. Armed with the search warrant, SPO1 Salvador
Aldave, Jr. (SPO1 Aldave) forced the door open. the raiding team recovered one piece of aluminum foil, one
plastic sachet containing residue of white crystalline substance, and one small pair of green scissors
beside the bed inside a room, and 15 pieces of used lighters from an improvised altar on top of a wooden
table.

The sachet with the initial R was the sachet of shabu sold to PO1 Area during the buy bust operation
while the sachets of shabu marked as R1 to R12 were the sachets of shabu which Roger handed to
Emily and which were found in the possession of Emily after PO1 Area identified himself as a police officer.

The accusedappellants were subsequently charged in two separate Informations, In the first case, for
selling 12 pieces of sachets of shabu; and in the second case, for possession of the shabu paraphernalia.

ISSUES:
1. WON the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody YES. In the instant case, the
prosecution was able to present, not only the corpus delicti, but the testimonies of the people
involved in each link in the chain of custody.
2. WON the prosecution was able to prove that accused-appellants sold 12 sachets of shabu NO.

HELD:
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accusedappellants sold 12 sachets of
shabu, but it has proven the accusedappellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt of possession of the same
number of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

The unfortunate fact of this case is that rather than separately charging Emily for the sale of the one
sachet of shabu and charging both Emily and Roger for possession of the 12 sachets of shabu, the public
prosecutor lumped the charges together to sale of 12 sachets of shabu. This is wrong. The Information is
defective for charging the accusedappellants of selling 12 sachets of shabu when, in fact, they should have
been charged of selling one sachet of shabu and possessing 12 sachets of shabu. From the evidence
adduced, Emily and Roger never sold the 12 sachets of shabu. They possessed them. Thus, they should
have not been convicted for selling the 12 sachets of shabu. However, this was exactly what was done
both by the trial court and the CA. Without basis in fact, they convicted the couple for selling the 12
sachets of shabu.

Indeed, it must be pointed out that the prosecution filed a defective Information. An Information is fatally
defective when it is clear that it does not really charge an offense56 or when an essential element of the
crime has not been sufficiently alleged.57 In the instant case, while the prosecution was able to allege the
identity of the buyer and the seller, it failed to particularly allege or identify in the Information the subject
matter of the sale or the corpus delicti. We must remember that one of the essential elements to convict a
person of sale of prohibited drugs is to identify with certainty the corpus delicti Here, the prosecution took
the liberty to lump together two sets of corpora delicti when it should have separated the two in two
different informations. To allow the prosecution to do this is to deprive the accusedappellants of their right
to be informed, not only of the nature of the offense being charged, but of the essential element of the
offense charged; and in this case, the very corpus delicti of the crime.
Furthermore, when ambiguity exists in the complaint or information, the court has no other recourse but to
resolve the ambiguity in favor of the accused.58 Here, since there exists ambiguity as to the identity of
corpus delicti, an essential element of the offense charged, it follows that such ambiguity must be resolved
in favor of the accused appellants. Thus, from the foregoing discussion, we have no other choice but to
acquit the accusedappellants of sale of 12 sachets of shabu.
Truly, both the trial court and the CA were wrong in convicting the couple for selling 12 sachets of shabu
because the prosecution failed to show that the husband and wife had indeed sold the 12 sachets of
shabu. Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 provides:

In the instant case, PO1 Areas testimony showed no evidence that the transaction as to the sale of the 12
sachets of shabu ever happened. Rather, PO1 Area adequately testified on the fact that accusedappellant
Roger handed the 12 sachets of shabu to Emily who kept them in a coin purse.

PEOPLE V. OCTAVIO
TOPIC: RA9165; Chain of custody exemptions
FACTS: Octavio and Carino were both accused guilty of violating Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.

Prosecutions evidence:
A buy bust operation was done at Pateros Street, Barangay Olympia, Makati City. After the transaction was
made, Makati AntiDrug Abuse Council (MADAC) operative Baysa introduced himself before effecting the
arrest of the subject, who was later identified as the herein accused Gerry Octavio. routine body search
upon his person yielded the marked money, two (2) pieces of small plastic sachets containing suspected
shabu and another two (2) P100 bills. MADAC operative Sumudlayon, on the other hand, was able to arrest
alias Nano, who was later identified as the herein accused Reynaldo Carino. Two (2) pieces of heatsealed
transparent plastic sachets containing the same illegal substance were recovered from his possession.
Thereafter, they preceded to the police station.

Defendants evidence:
Octavio narrated that at around 6:30 oclock in the evening of 16 August 2007, he was walking along
Pateros Street on his way to the house of Sylvia Lopez. Since he worked as a car painter, he was supposed
to estimate the cost of materials needed to repaint her vehicle. Along the way, he caught sight of an
incoming Mitsubishi L300 van. When it stopped in front of him, two (2) armed men alighted therefrom and
wanted to know where he was going. They likewise accused him of using illegal drugs (Siguro iiscore ka,
ano?). Although he denied the accusation, they still brought him inside the van where he also found
Carino.

Accusedappellants submit that the trial court failed to consider the procedural flaws committed by the
arresting officers in the seizure and custody of drugs as embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II,
R.A. No. 9165.14 Accusedappellants allege that no photograph was taken of the items seized from them.
Further, Barangay Captain Del Prado, an elected public official, was not present during the alleged buybust
operation. He was only asked to sign the inventory of the seized items shortly after his arrival at the scene
of the buybust operation. Thus, he has no personal knowledge as to whether the drugs allegedly seized
from the accusedappellants were indeed recovered from them. Accusedappellants maintain that such
failure created a cloud of doubt as to whether the alleged shabu seized from them were the same ones
forwarded by the apprehending officers to the investigating officer, to the crime laboratory for examination
and later presented in court.

ISSUE: WON the prosecution complied with the procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of
the seized drug
HELD: YES. Relevant to accused appellants case is the procedure to be followed in the custody and
handling of the seized dangerous drugs as outlined in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, R.A. No. 9165,
which reads:
(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 provision is elaborated in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.
No. 9165, which states:

(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 noncompliance 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[.]

Clearly, there is nothing in the aforesaid law or its implementing rules which require the presence of the
elected public official during the buybust operation. It is enough that he is present during the physical
inventory immediately conducted after the seizure and confiscation of the drugs and he signs the copies of
the inventory and is given a copy thereof.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that even if the arresting officers failed to take a photograph of
the seized drugs as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will
not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination
of the guilt or innocence of the accused. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this
case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully
observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.

PEOPLE V. CASTRO
TOPIC: RA9165; illegal possession of drugs
FACTS: PO1 he received a phone call from a concerned citizen that a male person wearing green tshirt
and brown maong bought shabu near the Iglesia Ni Cristo; thus, they formed a buy bust operating team.
When the team went to INC church, they saw Castro and when Castro saw the policemen approaching him,
the policemen allegedly saw Castro throw plastic sachets of shabu, lighter and a coin 1 meter away from
him. Thereafter, he was apprehended and was brought to the police station. On the other hand, Castro
denied the allegations. Moreover, he contended that he did not have, when arrested, possession and
custody of prohibited drug, the court stating in this regard that illegal drug possession under the law
includes both actual and constructive possessions.

ISSUE: W/N the accused-appellant had the possession of shabu; YES

Ratio: In a prosecution involving illegal possession of prohibited/dangerous drugs, the following elements
must be proved:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

As determined by both the trial and appellate courts, the prosecution was able to establish, through
testimonial, documentary, and object evidence, the said elements.[15] As a matter of settled
jurisprudence on illegal possession of drug cases, credence is usually accorded the narration of the
incident by the apprehending police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular
manner.

In the instant case, the arresting officers, having been furnished a description of accused appellant from a
tipster, had a reason to suspect that petitioner is in possession of the prohibited substance. Thereafter,
they witnessed in plain view accusedappellant throwing to the ground a plastic sachet containing a white
substance. The very act of throwing away the sachet, the contents of which were later determined to be
shabu, presupposes that accusedappellant had prior possession of it. Ergo, all the elements of the crime
have been met.