CASES FOR PEOPLE VS.

CANTA EDIT 3x

G.R. No. 203028 January 15, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOSELITO BERAN y ZAPANTA @ "Jose", Accused-Appellant.

Contrary to the settled rule in a

buy-bust operation, the confiscated
shabu was not (1) marked in the
presence of Beran (2) immediately
upon confiscation.
Concerning the marking of evidence seized in a buy-bust operation or under a search warrant, vis-a-vis the physical
inventory and photograph, it must be noted that there are distinctions as to time and place under Section 21 of R A No.
9165. Thus, whereas in seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must be
conducted in the place of the search warrant, in warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, consistent with the "chain of custody" rule. In People v. Sanchez 44 the Court held that:
"Physical inventory and photograph
requirement under Section 21
vis--vis "marking" of seized evidence
While the first sentence of Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 states that "the
apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same," the second sentence makes a distinction between
warrantless seizures and seizures by virtue of a warrant, thus:
"(a) x x x 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."
Thus, the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items differ and depend on whether the
seizure was made by virtue of a search warrant or through a warrantless seizure such as a buy-bust operation.
In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place where
the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in case of warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation, the
physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable; however, nothing prevents the apprehending officer/team from immediately
conducting the physical inventory and photography of the items at the place where they were seized, as it is more in
keeping with the law's intent of preserving their integrity and evidentiary value.
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 itemsto 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. This step initiates the process of
protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers
from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or
theft.45 (Citations omitted and emphases in the original)
It needs no elaboration that the immediate marking of the item seized in a buy-bust operation in the presence of the
accused is indispensable to establish its identity in court. PO3 Sia admitted that he marked the sachet of shabu only at
the DAID-WPD precinct, several kilometers from the buy-bust scene, as well as impliedly admitted that Beran was
not then present. Indeed, none of the buy-bust team attested that they saw him take custody of the confiscated shabu
and later mark the sachet at the DAID-WPD office.
Also, the operatives rode in separate vehicles on the trip back to the WPD, and PO3 Sia took a scooter with another
teammate, who could then have attested as to his exclusive custody of the subject drug, but that person was not
presented to affirm this fact. So even granting that P03 Sia did mark the same sachet at the precinct, breaks in the
chain of custody had already taken place, first, when he confiscated it from Beran without anyone observing him do
so and without marking the subject sachet at the place of apprehension, and then as he was transporting it to the
precinct, thus casting serious doubt upon the value of the said links to prove the corpus delicti.
It has been held that "while a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain
becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration,
tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange." 46 Moreover, as the investigator of the case, PO3 Sia
claimed that he personally took the drug to the laboratory for testing, but there is no showing who the laboratory
technician was who received the drug from him. The records also show that he submitted the sachet to the laboratory
only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his exclusive custody thereof overnight. All these leave us
with no conclusion but that there is serious doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item have not
been fatally compromised.
Lapses in the strict compliance with
the requirements of Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 must be explained in
terms of their justifiable grounds,
and the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence seized must be
shown to have been preserved.
In People v. Coreche,47 we explained that the above-cited rules are intended to narrow the window of opportunity for
tampering with evidence, as expressed in Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165. As noted by the Court which is worth
1wphi1

stating:
RA 9165 is silent on when and where marking should be done. On the other hand, its implementing rules provide
guidelines on the inventory of the seized drugs, thus: "the physical inventory x x x shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures" (Section 21(a) of Implementing Rules and Regulations). In
People v. Sanchez G.R. No. 175832, 15 October 2008, 569 SCRA 194), we drew a distinction between marking and
inventory and held that consistent with the chain of custody rule, the marking of the drugs seized without warrant
must be done "immediately upon confiscation" and in the presence of the accused.
The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence found legislative expression in
Section 21(1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-
tiered requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the apprehending team having initial
custody and control of the drugs the duty to "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."
Although RA 9165 is silent on the effect of non-compliance with Section 21(1), its implementing guidelines provide
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." We have interpreted this provision to mean that the prosecution bears
the burden of proving "justifiable cause" (People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, 25 February
2009, 580 SCRA 259).48
In Sanchez, we recognized that under varied field conditions the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21
of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible, and we ruled that under the implementing guidelines of the said Section
"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."49 But we added that the prosecution bears the burden of proving justifiable
cause."
Thus, in Almorfe, we stressed that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons
behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been
preserved.50 In People v. de Guzman,51 we emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven
as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 52

G.R. No 191726 February 06, 2013

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
NOEL BARTOLOME y BAJO, Accused-Appellant

We point out that the non-adherence to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was not a serious
flaw that would make the arrest of the accused illegal or that would render the shabu subject of the sale by
him inadmissible as evidence against him. What was crucial was the proper preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized shabu, inasmuch as that would be significant in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused.

People v. Tion, [24] this Court had the opportunity to discuss the weight given to
testimonies of members of buy-bust teams in drug-related cases:

G.R. No. 172092

December 16, 2009

Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-
bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly
performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve
full faith and credit. Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of
the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who
are police officers, for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill
motive on the part of the police officers or deviation from the regular
performance of their duties.

People v. Ahmad, G.R. No. 148048, January 15, 2004

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment legally employed by peace officers as
an effective way of apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an
offense.Such police operation has judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with
due respect to constitutional and legal safeguards. [11] There is no rigid or textbook
method in conducting buy-bust operations.
G.R. No. 191360 March 10, 2014
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SHERWIN BIS y AVELLANEDA, Accused-Appellant.

Credibility of witnesses not affected by minor inconsistencies.

Appellant points out inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Espejo and Arce, to wit: (1) Espejo
testified that he found the aluminum foils and the marked money tucked on appellants waistline while Arce testified
that he saw Espejo frisk appellant and found the specimen in the latters pocket; (2) Espejo stated that appellant was
then wearing basketball shorts while Arce described him as wearing a six-pocket short pants. Appellant argues that
these inconsistent statements render Espejo and Arce incredible witnesses.
The Court is not convinced. While there are indeed minor contradictions in Espejo and Arce s testimonies, the same
are nevertheless inconsequential and do not detract from the proven elements of the offense of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. As the CA correctly observed:
The foregoing inconsistencies, however, relate only to minor matters and do not touch on the essence of the crime.
Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncement by the Supreme Court that a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the
testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details which do not touch the essence of the crime do not impair their
credibility.15
It is now too well-settled to require extensive documentation that "inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses,
which refer only to minor details and collateral matters, do not affect the veracity and weight of their testimonies
where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and the positive identification of the
accused."16Significantly, in the case at bench, the testimonies of the said witnesses for the prosecution were in
harmony with respect to their positive identification of appellant as the one who sold the illegal drugs to Espejo, the
poseur-buyer, in a planned buy-bust operation, as well as to the other surrounding circumstances that transpired during
the said operation.
Chain of custody properly established.
Appellant posits that the prosecution did not strictly comply with the procedures laid down in Section 21, Article II of
RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations regarding the physical inventory and photograph of the seized
items. Non-compliance therewith, he argues, casts doubt on the validity of his arrest and the identity of the suspected
shabu allegedly bought and confiscated from him.
On the matter of handling the confiscated illegal drugs after a buy-bust operation, Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165
provides:
(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;
Accordingly, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 which implements the afore-
quoted provision reads:
(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;
Case law has it that non-compliance with the abovequoted provision of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations is not fatal and will not render an accuseds arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. "What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused." 17

G.R. No. 205472

AMADO I. SARAUM,1 Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

In Mallillin v. People,22 the Court discussed how the chain of custody of seized items should be
established, thus:
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. 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.23
While the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible
to obtain an unbroken chain.24 Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not
necessarily render an accused person's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. 25
x x x Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and
is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids
its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that
will be accorded it by the courts. x x x
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the
confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore,
if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight - evidentiary merit or probative
value - to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances
obtaining in each case.26
The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 27 In this case,
the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia
had not been compromised because it established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from the
time they were first discovered until they were brought to the court for examination. Even though the prosecution
failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia, this will not render
Saraum's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. There is substantial compliance by the police as to
the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items. The succession of events established by
evidence and the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals all show that the evidence seized were
the same evidence subsequently identified and testified to in open court.
Certainly, the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation are generally accorded full faith
and credit in view of the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and especially so in the
absence of ill-motive that could be attributed to them.28 The defense failed to show any odious intent on the part of the
police officers to impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent person. 29