Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In accordance with the formula prescribed in DAR Administrative In determining the valuation of the land, the trial court based the
Order No. 6, Series of 1992,2 as amended by DAR Administrative same on the facts established in another case pending before it
Order No. 11, Series of 1994,3 the Land Bank of the (Civil Case No. 6679, "Luz Rodriguez vs. DAR, et al."), using the
Philippines4 (Landbank), petitioner, made the following valuation following formula:
of the property:
For the coconut land
Acquired property Area in hectares Value
1. Average Gross Production (AGP) x .70 x 9.70
Coconut land 5.4730 P148,675.19 (price per kilo of coconut) = Net Income (NI)
In the proceedings before the RTC, it is mandated to apply the 2. the current value of like properties;
Rules of Court19 and, on its own initiative or at the instance of any
of the parties, "appoint one or more commissioners to examine, 3. its nature, actual use and income;
investigate and ascertain facts relevant to the dispute, including
the valuation of properties, and to file a written report thereof x x
x."20 In determining just compensation, the RTC is required to 4. the sworn valuation by the owner; the tax
consider several factors enumerated in Section 17 of R.A. 6657, declarations;
as amended, thus:
5. the assessment made by government assessors;
"Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. – In
determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition 6. the social and economic benefits contributed by the
of the land, the current value of like properties, its farmers and the farmworkers and by the government to
nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the property; and
the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment
made by government assessors shall be considered.
The social and economic benefits contributed by the 7. the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any
farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to government financing institution on the said land, if any.
the property, as well as the non-payment of taxes or
loans secured from any government financing Obviously, these factors involve factual matters which can be
institution on the said land, shall be considered as established only during a hearing wherein the contending parties
additional factors to determine its valuation." present their respective evidence. In fact, to underscore the
intricate nature of determining the valuation of the land, Section
These factors have been translated into a basic formula in DAR 58 of the same law even authorizes the Special Agrarian Courts to
Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by DAR appoint commissioners for such purpose.
Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1994, issued pursuant to
the DAR's rule-making power to carry out the object and Secondly, the RTC, in concluding that the valuation of
purposes of R.A. 6657, as amended.21 respondents' property is P703,137.00, merely took judicial notice
of the average production figures in the Rodriguez case pending
The formula stated in DAR Administrative Order No. 6, as before it and applied the same to this case without conducting a
amended, is as follows: hearing and worse, without the knowledge or consent of the
parties, thus:
"The Riceland taken under Presidential Decree No. 27 as In sum, we find that the Court of Appeals and the RTC erred in
of October 21, 1972 has an area of .7600 hectare. If in determining the valuation of the subject land. Thus, we deem it
the Rodriguez case the Landbank fixed the average proper to remand this case to the RTC for trial on the merits
gross production of 3000 kilos or 60 cavans of palay per wherein the parties may present their respective evidence. In
year, then the .7600 hectare in this case would be 46 determining the valuation of the subject property, the trial court
cavans. The value of the riceland therefore in this case shall consider the factors provided under Section 17 of R.A. 6657,
is 46 cavans x 2.5 x P400.00 equals P46,000.00.22 as amended, mentioned earlier. The formula prescribed by the
DAR in Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by
DAR Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1994, shall be used in
"PARC Resolution 94-24-1 of 25 October 1994,
the valuation of the land. Furthermore, upon its own initiative, or
implemented by DAR AO 13, granted interest on the
at the instance of any of the parties, the trial court may appoint
compensation at 6% compounded annually. The
one or more commissioners to examine, investigate and ascertain
compounded interest on the 46 cavans for 26 years is
facts relevant to the dispute.
199.33 cavans. At P400.00 per cavan, the value of the
compounded interest is P79,732.00."23 (emphasis added)
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated March 20, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No.
Well-settled is the rule that courts are not authorized to take
52163 is REVERSED. Civil Case No. 6806 is REMANDED to the
judicial notice of the contents of the records of other cases even
RTC, Branch 40, Daet, Camarines Norte, for trial on the merits
when said cases have been tried or are pending in the same court
with dispatch. The trial judge is directed to observe strictly the
or before the same judge.24 They may only do so "in the absence
procedures specified above in determining the proper valuation
of objection" and "with the knowledge of the opposing
of the subject property.
party,"25 which are not obtaining here.
SO ORDERED.
Furthermore, as earlier stated, the Rules of Court shall apply to all
proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts. In this regard,
Section 3, Rule 129 of the Revised Rules on Evidence is explicit
on the necessity of a hearing before a court takes judicial notice
of a certain matter, thus:
The facts of the case as summarized by the respondent appellate Again, defendant on February 11, 1987 filed a motion to dismiss
court are as follows: alleging inter alia: (1) that the court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the case, and (2) that Philippine courts have no
jurisdiction over the instant case. Defendant contends that the
Sometime in 1978, plaintiff [Menandro B. Laureano, herein complaint is for illegal dismissal together with a money claim
petitioner], then Director of Flight Operations and Chief Pilot of arising out of and in the course of plaintiffs employment "thus it
Air Manila, applied for employment with defendant company is the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC who have the jurisdiction
[herein private respondent] through its Area Manager in Manila. pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code" and that, since plaintiff
was employed in Singapore, all other aspects of his employment
On September 30, 1978, after the usual personal interview, contract and/or documents executed in Singapore. Thus,
defendant wrote to plaintiff, offering a contract of employment as defendant postulates that Singapore laws should apply and
an expatriate B-707 captain for an original period of two (2) years courts thereat shall have jurisdiction. (pp. 50-69, Rec.).
commencing on January 21, 1978. Plaintiff accepted the offer and
commenced working on January 20, 1979. After passing the six- In traversing defendant's arguments, plaintiff claimed that: (1)
month probation period, plaintiffs appointment was confirmed where the items demanded in a complaint are the natural
effective July 21, 1979. (Annex "B", p. 30, Rollo). consequences flowing from a breach of an obligation and not
labor benefits, the case is intrinsically a civil dispute; (2) the case
On July 21, 1979, defendant offered plaintiff an extension of his involves a question that is beyond the field of specialization of
two-year contract to five (5) years effective January 21, 1979 to labor arbiters; and (3) if the complaint is grounded not on the
January 20, 1984 subject to the terms and conditions set forth in employee's dismissal per se but on the manner of said dismissal
the contract of employment, which the latter accepted (Annex "C" and the consequence thereof, the case falls under the jurisdiction
p. 31, Rec.). of the civil courts. (pp. 70-73, Rec.)
During his service as B-707 captain, plaintiff on August 24, 1980, On March 23, 1987, the court a quo denied defendant's motion to
while in command of a flight, committed a noise violation offense dismiss (pp. 82-84, Ibid). The motion for reconsideration was
at the Zurich Airport, for which plaintiff apologized.(Exh. "3", p. likewise denied. (p. 95 ibid.)
307, Rec.).
On September 16, 1987, defendant filed its answer reiterating the
Sometime in 1980, plaintiff featured in a tail scraping incident grounds relied upon in its motion to dismiss and further arguing
wherein the tail of the aircraft scraped or touched the runway that plaintiff is barred by laches, waiver, and estoppel from
during landing. He was suspended for a few days until he was instituting the complaint and that he has no cause of action . (pp.
investigated by board headed by Capt. Choy. He was 102-115)1
reprimanded.
On April 10, 1991, the trial court handed down its decision in favor
On September 25, 1981, plaintiff was invited to take a course of A- of plaintiff. The dispositive portion of which reads:
300 conversion training at Aeroformacion, Toulouse, France at
dependant's expense. Having successfully completed and passed WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff
the training course, plaintiff was cleared on April 7, 1981, for solo Menandro Laureano and against defendant Singapore Airlines
duty as captain of the Airbus A-300 and subsequently appointed Limited, ordering defendant to pay plaintiff the amounts of —
as captain of the A-300 fleet commanding an Airbus A-300 in
flights over Southeast Asia. (Annexes "D", "E" and "F", pp. 34-38,
Rec.). SIN$396,104.00, or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the
current rate of exchange at the time of payment, as and for
unearned compensation with legal interest from the filing of the
Sometime in 1982, defendant, hit by a recession, initiated cost- complaint until fully paid;
cutting measures. Seventeen (17) expatriate captains in the
Airbus fleet were found in excess of the defendant's requirement
(t.s.n., July 6, 1988. p. 11). Consequently, defendant informed its SIN$154,742.00, or its equivalent in Philippine currency at the
expatriate pilots including plaintiff of the situation and advised current rate of exchange at the time of payment; and the further
them to take advance leaves. (Exh. "15", p. 466, Rec.) amounts of P67,500.00 as consequential damages with legal
interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid;
Realizing that the recession would not be for a short time,
defendant decided to terminate its excess personnel (t.s.n., July P1,000,000.00 as and for moral damages; P1,000,000.00 as and for
6, 1988, p. 17). It did not, however, immediately terminate it's A- exemplary damages; and P100,000.00 as and for attorney's fees.
300 pilots. It reviewed their qualifications for possible promotion
to the B-747 fleet. Among the 17 excess Airbus pilots reviewed, Costs against defendant.
twelve were found qualified. Unfortunately, plaintiff was not one
of the twelve.
SO ORDERED.2
Singapore Airlines timely appealed before the respondent court In our view, neither Article 11447 nor Article 11468 of the Civil
and raised the issues of jurisdiction, validity of termination, Code is here pertinent. What is applicable is Article 291 of the
estoppel, and damages. Labor Code, viz:
On October 29, 1993, the appellate court set aside the decision of Art. 291. Money claims. — All money claims arising from
the trial court, thus, employee-employer relations accruing during the effectivity of
this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the
cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred.
. . . In the instant case, the action for damages due to illegal
termination was filed by plaintiff-appellee only on January 8, 1987
or more than four (4) years after the effectivity date of his xxx xxx xxx
dismissal on November 1, 1982. Clearly, plaintiff-appellee's action
has already prescribed.
What rules on prescription should apply in cases like this one has
long been decided by this Court. In illegal dismissal, it is settled,
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and that the ten-year prescriptive period fixed in Article 1144 of the
SET ASIDE. The complaint is hereby dismissed. Civil Code may not be invoked by petitioners, for the Civil Code is
a law of general application, while the prescriptive period fixed in
Article 292 of the Labor Code [now Article 291] is a SPECIAL LAW
SO ORDERED.3
applicable to claims arising from employee-employer relations.9
2. CAN AN EMPLOYEE WITH A FIXED PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT It should be noted further that Article 291 of the Labor Code is a
BE RETRENCHED BY HIS EMPLOYER? special law applicable to money claims arising from employer-
employee relations; thus, it necessarily prevails over Article 1144
of the Civil Code, a general law. Basic is the rule in statutory
3. CAN THERE BE VALID RETRENCHMENT IF AN EMPLOYER construction that "where two statutes are of equal theoretical
MERELY FAILS TO REALIZE THE EXPECTED PROFITS EVEN IF IT application to a particular case, the one designed therefore
WERE NOT, IN FACT, INCURRING LOSSES? should prevail." (Citing Leveriza v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
157 SCRA 282, 294.) Generalia specialibus non derogant.11
At the outset, we find it necessary to state our concurrence on the
assumption of jurisdiction by the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
In the light of Article 291, aforecited, we agree with the appellate
Branch 9. The trial court rightly ruled on the application of court's conclusion that petitioner's action for damages due to
Philippine law, thus: illegal termination filed again on January 8, 1987 or more than
four (4) years after the effective date of his dismissal on
Neither can the Court determine whether the termination of the November 1, 1982 has already prescribed.
plaintiff is legal under the Singapore Laws because of the
defendant's failure to show which specific laws of Singapore
In the instant case, the action for damages due to illegal
Laws apply to this case. As substantially discussed in the termination was filed by plaintiff-appelle only on January 8, 1987
preceding paragraphs, the Philippine Courts do not take judicial or more than four (4) years after the effectivity date of his
notice of the laws of Singapore. The defendant that claims the
dismissal on November 1, 1982. Clearly, plaintiff-appellee's action
applicability of the Singapore Laws to this case has the burden of has already prescribed.
proof. The defendant has failed to do so. Therefore, the Philippine
law should be applied.4
We base our conclusion not on Article 1144 of the Civil Code but
on which sets the prescription period at three (3) years and which
Respondent Court of Appeals acquired jurisdiction when governs under this jurisdiction.
defendant filed its appeal before said court.5 On this matter,
respondent court was correct when it barred defendant-appellant
below from raising further the issue of jurisdiction.6 Petitioner claims that the running of the prescriptive period was
tolled when he filed his complaint for illegal dismissal before the
Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Petitioner now raises the issue of whether his action is one based However, this claim deserves scant consideration; it has no legal
on Article 1144 or on Article 1146 of the Civil Code. According to leg to stand on. In Olympia International, Inc., vs., Court of
him, his termination of employment effective November 1, 1982,
Appeals, we held that "although the commencement of a civil
was based on an employment contract which is under Article action stops the running of the statute of prescription or
1144, so his action should prescribe in 10 years as provided for in limitations, its dismissal or voluntary abandonment by the
said article. Thus he claims the ruling of the appellate court based
plaintiff leaves in exactly the same position as though no action
on Article 1146 where prescription is only four (4) years, is an had been commenced at all."12
error. The appellate court concluded that the action for illegal
dismissal originally filed before the Labor Arbiter on June 29,
1983, but which was withdrawn, then filed again in 1987 before Now, as to whether petitioner's separation from the company due
the Regional Trial Court, had already prescribed. to retrenchment was valid, the appellate court found that the
employment contract of petitioner allowed for pre-termination of
employment. We agree with the Court of Appeals when it said,
It is a settled rule that contracts have the force of law between the
parties. From the moment the same is perfected, the parties are
bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly
stipulated but also to all consequences which, according to their
nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law. Thus,
when plaintiff-appellee accepted the offer of employment, he was
bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the contract,
among others, the right of mutual termination by giving three
months written notice or by payment of three months salary.
Such provision is clear and readily understandable, hence, there
is no room for interpretation.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 195649 April 16, 2013 I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected to.
CASAN MACODE MAQUILING, Petitioner, I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the
vs. Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto. I
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO, will obey the laws, legal orders and decrees promulgated by the
LINOG G. BALUA, Respondents. duly constituted authorities.
I, Rommel Cagoco Arnado, solemnly swear that I will support and PASSPORT : 057782700
defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and
obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities of the Philippines and I hereby declare that DATE OF Arrival : 03/23/2010
I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I NATIONALITY : USA-AMERICAN
impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental
reservation or purpose of evasion.6
PASSPORT : 05778270012
On 3 April 2009 Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign On 30 April 2010, the COMELEC (First Division) issued an
citizenship, which states: Order13 requiring the respondent to personally file his answer and
memorandum within three (3) days from receipt thereof.
I, Rommel Cagoco Arnado, do solemnly swear that I absolutely
and perpetually renounce all allegiance and fidelity to the UNITED After Arnado failed to answer the petition, Balua moved to declare
STATES OF AMERICA of which I am a citizen, and I divest myself him in default and to present evidence ex-parte.
of full employment of all civil and political rights and privileges of
the United States of America. Neither motion was acted upon, having been overtaken by the
2010 elections where Arnado garnered the highest number of
I solemnly swear that all the foregoing statement is true and votes and was subsequently proclaimed as the winning candidate
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.7 for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte.
On 30 November 2009, Arnado filed his Certificate of Candidacy It was only after his proclamation that Arnado filed his verified
for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, which contains, among answer, submitting the following documents as evidence:14
others, the following statements:
1. Affidavit of Renunciation and Oath of Allegiance to the
I am a natural born Filipino citizen / naturalized Filipino citizen. Republic of the Philippines dated 03 April 2009;
I am not a permanent resident of, or immigrant to, a foreign 2. Joint-Affidavit dated 31 May 2010 of Engr. Virgil Seno, Virginia
country. Branzuela, Leoncio Daligdig, and Jessy Corpin, all neighbors of
Arnado, attesting that Arnado is a long-time resident of
Kauswagan and that he has been conspicuously and
continuously residing in his family’s ancestral house in Arnado sought reconsideration of the resolution before the
Kauswagan; COMELEC En Banc on the ground that "the evidence is
insufficient to justify the Resolution and that the said Resolution
is contrary to law."21 He raised the following contentions:22
3. Certification from the Punong Barangay of Poblacion,
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte dated 03 June 2010 stating that
Arnado is a bona fide resident of his barangay and that Arnado 1. The finding that he is not a Filipino citizen is not supported by
went to the United States in 1985 to work and returned to the the evidence consisting of his Oath of Allegiance and the Affidavit
Philippines in 2009; of Renunciation, which show that he has substantially complied
with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225;
4. Certification dated 31 May 2010 from the Municipal Local
Government Operations Office of Kauswagan stating that Dr. 2. The use of his US passport subsequent to his renunciation of
Maximo P. Arnado, Sr. served as Mayor of Kauswagan, from his American citizenship is not tantamount to a repudiation of his
January 1964 to June 1974 and from 15 February 1979 to 15 April Filipino citizenship, as he did not perform any act to swear
1986; and allegiance to a country other than the Philippines;
5. Voter Certification issued by the Election Officer of Kauswagan 3. He used his US passport only because he was not informed of
certifying that Arnado has been a registered voter of Kauswagan the issuance of his Philippine passport, and that he used his
since 03 April 2009. Philippine passport after he obtained it;
THE RULING OF THE COMELEC FIRST DIVISION 4. Balua’s petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Arnado
was filed out of time, and the First Division’s treatment of the
petition as one for disqualification constitutes grave abuse of
Instead of treating the Petition as an action for the cancellation of
discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction;23
a certificate of candidacy based on misrepresentation, 15 the
COMELEC First Division considered it as one for disqualification.
Balua’s contention that Arnado is a resident of the United States 5. He is undoubtedly the people’s choice as indicated by his
was dismissed upon the finding that "Balua failed to present any winning the elections;
evidence to support his contention,"16 whereas the First Division
still could "not conclude that Arnado failed to meet the one-year
6. His proclamation as the winning candidate ousted the
residency requirement under the Local Government Code."17
COMELEC from jurisdiction over the case; and
First Division reads: In its Resolution of 02 February 2011, the COMELEC En Banc held
that under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6646, the Commission
"shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action, inquiry or
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for
protest even after the proclamation of the candidate whose
disqualification and/or to cancel the certificate of candidacy of
qualifications for office is questioned."
Rommel C. Arnado is hereby GRANTED. Rommel C. Arnado’s
proclamation as the winning candidate for Municipal Mayor of
Kauswagan, Lanao del Nore is hereby ANNULLED. Let the order As to Maquiling’s intervention, the COMELEC En Banc also cited
of succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code of Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 which allows intervention in
1991 take effect.20 proceedings for disqualification even after elections if no final
judgment has been rendered, but went on further to say that
Maquiling, as the second placer, would not be prejudiced by the
The Motion for Reconsideration and
outcome of the case as it agrees with the dispositive portion of
the Motion for Intervention
the Resolution of the First Division allowing the order of
succession under Section 44 of the Local Government Code to have remained a Filipino despite his use of his American passport
take effect. in the absence of clear, unequivocal and competent proof of
expatriation. Accordingly, all doubts should be resolved in favor
of retention of citizenship."26
The COMELEC En Banc agreed with the treatment by the First
Division of the petition as one for disqualification, and ruled that
the petition was filed well within the period prescribed by On the other hand, Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento dissented,
law,24 having been filed on 28 April 2010, which is not later than 11 thus:
May 2010, the date of proclamation.
Respondent evidently failed to prove that he truly and
However, the COMELEC En Banc reversed and set aside the wholeheartedly abandoned his allegiance to the United States.
ruling of the First Division and granted Arnado’s Motion for The latter’s continued use of his US passport and enjoyment of all
Reconsideration, on the following premises: the privileges of a US citizen despite his previous renunciation of
the afore-mentioned citizenship runs contrary to his declaration
that he chose to retain only his Philippine citizenship.
First:
Respondent’s submission with the twin requirements was
obviously only for the purpose of complying with the
By renouncing his US citizenship as imposed by R.A. No. 9225, requirements for running for the mayoralty post in connection
the respondent embraced his Philippine citizenship as though he with the May 10, 2010 Automated National and Local Elections.
never became a citizen of another country. It was at that time,
April 3, 2009, that the respondent became a pure Philippine
Qualifications for elective office, such as citizenship, are
Citizen again.
continuing requirements; once any of them is lost during his
incumbency, title to the office itself is deemed forfeited. If a
xxxx candidate is not a citizen at the time he ran for office or if he lost
his citizenship after his election to office, he is disqualified to
serve as such. Neither does the fact that respondent obtained the
The use of a US passport … does not operate to revert back his
plurality of votes for the mayoralty post cure the latter’s failure to
status as a dual citizen prior to his renunciation as there is no law comply with the qualification requirements regarding his
saying such. More succinctly, the use of a US passport does not citizenship.
operate to "un-renounce" what he has earlier on renounced. The
First Division’s reliance in the case of In Re: Petition for Habeas
Corpus of Willy Yu v. Defensor-Santiago, et al. is misplaced. The Since a disqualified candidate is no candidate at all in the eyes of
petitioner in the said case is a naturalized citizen who, after taking the law, his having received the highest number of votes does not
his oath as a naturalized Filipino, applied for the renewal of his validate his election. It has been held that where a petition for
Portuguese passport. Strict policy is maintained in the conduct of disqualification was filed before election against a candidate but
citizens who are not natural born, who acquire their citizenship by was adversely resolved against him after election, his having
choice, thus discarding their original citizenship. The Philippine obtained the highest number of votes did not make his election
State expects strict conduct of allegiance to those who choose to valid. His ouster from office does not violate the principle of vox
be its citizens. In the present case, respondent is not a populi suprema est lex because the application of the
naturalized citizen but a natural born citizen who chose greener constitutional and statutory provisions on disqualification is not a
pastures by working abroad and then decided to repatriate to matter of popularity. To apply it is to breath[e] life to the
supposedly help in the progress of Kauswagan. He did not apply sovereign will of the people who expressed it when they ratified
for a US passport after his renunciation. Thus the mentioned case the Constitution and when they elected their representatives who
is not on all fours with the case at bar. enacted the law.27
The respondent presented a plausible explanation as to the use of Maquiling filed the instant petition questioning the propriety of
his US passport. Although he applied for a Philippine passport, declaring Arnado qualified to run for public office despite his
the passport was only issued on June 18, 2009. However, he was continued use of a US passport, and praying that Maquiling be
not notified of the issuance of his Philippine passport so that he proclaimed as the winner in the 2010 mayoralty race in
was actually able to get it about three (3) months later. Yet as Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte.
soon as he was in possession of his Philippine passport, the
respondent already used the same in his subsequent travels
Ascribing both grave abuse of discretion and reversible error on
abroad. This fact is proven by the respondent’s submission of a
the part of the COMELEC En Banc for ruling that Arnado is a
certified true copy of his passport showing that he used the same
Filipino citizen despite his continued use of a US passport,
for his travels on the following dates: January 31, 2010, April 16,
Maquiling now seeks to reverse the finding of the COMELEC En
2010, May 20, 2010, January 12, 2010, March 31, 2010 and June 4,
Banc that Arnado is qualified to run for public office.
2010. This then shows that the use of the US passport was
because to his knowledge, his Philippine passport was not yet
issued to him for his use. As probably pressing needs might be Corollary to his plea to reverse the ruling of the COMELEC En
undertaken, the respondent used whatever is within his control Banc or to affirm the First Division’s disqualification of Arnado,
during that time.25 Maquiling also seeks the review of the applicability of Section 44
of the Local Government Code, claiming that the COMELEC
committed reversible error in ruling that "the succession of the
In his Separate Concurring Opinion, COMELEC Chairman Sixto
vice mayor in case the respondent is disqualified is in order."
Brillantes cited that the use of foreign passport is not one of the
grounds provided for under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No.
63 through which Philippine citizenship may be lost. There are three questions posed by the parties before this Court
which will be addressed seriatim as the subsequent questions
hinge on the result of the first.
"The application of the more assimilative principle of continuity of
citizenship is more appropriate in this case. Under said principle,
once a person becomes a citizen, either by birth or naturalization, The first question is whether or not intervention is allowed in a
it is assumed that he desires to continue to be a citizen, and this disqualification case.
assumption stands until he voluntarily denationalizes or
expatriates himself. Thus, in the instant case respondent after
reacquiring his Philippine citizenship should be presumed to
The second question is whether or not the use of a foreign Clearly then, Maquiling has the right to intervene in the case. The
passport after renouncing foreign citizenship amounts to undoing fact that the COMELEC En Banc has already ruled that Maquiling
a renunciation earlier made. has not shown that the requisites for the exemption to the
second-placer rule set forth in Sinsuat v. COMELEC30 are present
and therefore would not be prejudiced by the outcome of the
A better framing of the question though should be whether or not
case, does not deprive Maquiling of the right to elevate the matter
the use of a foreign passport after renouncing foreign citizenship
before this Court.
affects one’s qualifications to run for public office.
Arnado’s claim that the main case has attained finality as the
The third question is whether or not the rule on succession in the
original petitioner and respondents therein have not appealed the
Local Government Code is applicable to this case.
decision of the COMELEC En Banc, cannot be sustained. The
elevation of the case by the intervenor prevents it from attaining
OUR RULING finality. It is only after this Court has ruled upon the issues raised
in this instant petition that the disqualification case originally filed
by Balua against Arnado will attain finality.
Intervention of a rival candidate in a
disqualification case is proper when
there has not yet been any The use of foreign passport after renouncing one’s foreign
proclamation of the winner. citizenship is a positive and voluntary act of representation as to
one’s nationality and citizenship; it does not divest Filipino
citizenship regained by repatriation but it recants the Oath of
Petitioner Casan Macode Maquiling intervened at the stage when
Renunciation required to qualify one to run for an elective
respondent Arnado filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the First
position.
Division Resolution before the COMELEC En Banc. As the
candidate who garnered the second highest number of votes,
Maquiling contends that he has an interest in the disqualification Section 5(2) of The Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act
case filed against Arnado, considering that in the event the latter of 2003 provides:
is disqualified, the votes cast for him should be considered stray
and the second-placer should be proclaimed as the winner in the
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this
elections.
Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all
attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the
It must be emphasized that while the original petition before the Philippines and the following conditions:
COMELEC is one for cancellation of the certificate of candidacy
and / or disqualification, the COMELEC First Division and the
xxxx
COMELEC En Banc correctly treated the petition as one for
disqualification.
(2)Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the
qualification for holding such public office as required by the
The effect of a disqualification case is enunciated in Section 6 of
Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
R.A. No. 6646:
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn renunciation
of any and all foreign before any public officer authorized to
Sec. 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who has administer an oath.
been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not be
voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for
x x x31
any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before
an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the
winning number of votes in such election, the Court or Rommel Arnado took all the necessary steps to qualify to run for
Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the a public office. He took the Oath of Allegiance and renounced his
action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or foreign citizenship. There is no question that after performing
any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the these twin requirements required under Section 5(2) of R.A. No.
suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of 2003,
evidence of his guilt is strong. he became eligible to run for public office.
Mercado v. Manzano28 Indeed, Arnado took the Oath of Allegiance not just only once but
twice: first, on 10 July 2008 when he applied for repatriation
before the Consulate General of the Philippines in San Francisco,
clarified the right of intervention in a disqualification case. In that
USA, and again on 03 April 2009 simultaneous with the execution
case, the Court said:
of his Affidavit of Renunciation. By taking the Oath of Allegiance
to the Republic, Arnado re-acquired his Philippine citizenship. At
That petitioner had a right to intervene at that stage of the the time, however, he likewise possessed American citizenship.
proceedings for the disqualification against private respondent is Arnado had therefore become a dual citizen.
clear from Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646, otherwise known as the
Electoral Reforms Law of 1987, which provides: Any candidate
After reacquiring his Philippine citizenship, Arnado renounced his
who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall
American citizenship by executing an Affidavit of Renunciation,
not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted.
thus completing the requirements for eligibility to run for public
If for any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment
office.
before an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and
receives the winning number of votes in such election, the Court
or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the By renouncing his foreign citizenship, he was deemed to be
action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or solely a Filipino citizen, regardless of the effect of such
any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the renunciation under the laws of the foreign country.32
suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of guilt is strong. Under this provision, intervention may
However, this legal presumption does not operate permanently
be allowed in proceedings for disqualification even after election
and is open to attack when, after renouncing the foreign
if there has yet been no final judgment rendered.29
citizenship, the citizen performs positive acts showing his
continued possession of a foreign citizenship.33
Arnado himself subjected the issue of his citizenship to attack by virtue of birth, who are not required by law to take the oath of
when, after renouncing his foreign citizenship, he continued to renunciation as the mere filing of the certificate of candidacy
use his US passport to travel in and out of the country before already carries with it an implied renunciation of foreign
filing his certificate of candidacy on 30 November 2009. The citizenship.39 Dual citizens by naturalization, on the other hand,
pivotal question to determine is whether he was solely and are required to take not only the Oath of Allegiance to the
exclusively a Filipino citizen at the time he filed his certificate of Republic of the Philippines but also to personally renounce
candidacy, thereby rendering him eligible to run for public office. foreign citizenship in order to qualify as a candidate for public
office.
Between 03 April 2009, the date he renounced his foreign
citizenship, and 30 November 2009, the date he filed his COC, he By the time he filed his certificate of candidacy on 30 November
used his US passport four times, actions that run counter to the 2009, Arnado was a dual citizen enjoying the rights and privileges
affidavit of renunciation he had earlier executed. By using his of Filipino and American citizenship. He was qualified to vote, but
foreign passport, Arnado positively and voluntarily represented by the express disqualification under Section 40(d) of the Local
himself as an American, in effect declaring before immigration Government Code,40 he was not qualified to run for a local
authorities of both countries that he is an American citizen, with elective position.
all attendant rights and privileges granted by the United States of
America.
In effect, Arnado was solely and exclusively a Filipino citizen only
for a period of eleven days, or from 3 April 2009 until 14 April
The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a hollow oath that 2009, on which date he first used his American passport after
can simply be professed at any time, only to be violated the next renouncing his American citizenship.
day. It requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the
foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil and political
This Court has previously ruled that:
rights granted by the foreign country which granted the
citizenship.
Qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and
must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or
Mercado v. Manzano34 already hinted at this situation when the
election or assumption of office but during the officer's entire
Court declared:
tenure. Once any of the required qualifications is lost, his title
may be seasonably challenged. x x x.41
His declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfill his
undertaking made under oath. Should he betray that trust, there
The citizenship requirement for elective public office is a
are enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his Philippine
continuing one. It must be possessed not just at the time of the
citizenship through expatriation in appropriate proceedings. In Yu
renunciation of the foreign citizenship but continuously. Any act
v. Defensor-Santiago, we sustained the denial of entry into the
which violates the oath of renunciation opens the citizenship
country of petitioner on the ground that, after taking his oath as a
issue to attack.
naturalized citizen, he applied for the renewal of his Portuguese
passport and declared in commercial documents executed
abroad that he was a Portuguese national. A similar sanction can We agree with the pronouncement of the COMELEC First Division
be taken against anyone who, in electing Philippine citizenship, that "Arnado’s act of consistently using his US passport
renounces his foreign nationality, but subsequently does some effectively negated his "Affidavit of Renunciation."42 This does
act constituting renunciation of his Philippine citizenship. not mean, that he failed to comply with the twin requirements
under R.A. No. 9225, for he in fact did.
While the act of using a foreign passport is not one of the acts
enumerated in Commonwealth Act No. 63 constituting It was after complying with the requirements that he performed
renunciation and loss of Philippine citizenship,35 it is nevertheless positive acts which effectively disqualified him from running for
an act which repudiates the very oath of renunciation required for an elective public office pursuant to Section 40(d) of the Local
a former Filipino citizen who is also a citizen of another country to Government Code of 1991.
be qualified to run for a local elective position.
The purpose of the Local Government Code in disqualifying dual
When Arnado used his US passport on 14 April 2009, or just citizens from running for any elective public office would be
eleven days after he renounced his American citizenship, he thwarted if we were to allow a person who has earlier renounced
recanted his Oath of Renunciation36 that he "absolutely and his foreign citizenship, but who subsequently represents himself
perpetually renounce(s) all allegiance and fidelity to the UNITED as a foreign citizen, to hold any public office.
STATES OF AMERICA"37 and that he "divest(s) himself of full
employment of all civil and political rights and privileges of the
Arnado justifies the continued use of his US passport with the
United States of America."38
explanation that he was not notified of the issuance of his
Philippine passport on 18 June 2009, as a result of which he was
We agree with the COMELEC En Banc that such act of using a only able to obtain his Philippine passport three (3) months
foreign passport does not divest Arnado of his Filipino later.43
citizenship, which he acquired by repatriation. However, by
representing himself as an American citizen, Arnado voluntarily
The COMELEC En Banc differentiated Arnado from Willy Yu, the
and effectively reverted to his earlier status as a dual citizen.
Such reversion was not retroactive; it took place the instant Portuguese national who sought naturalization as a Filipino
Arnado represented himself as an American citizen by using his citizen and later applied for the renewal of his Portuguese
passport. That Arnado did not apply for a US passport after his
US passport.
renunciation does not make his use of a US passport less of an
act that violated the Oath of Renunciation he took. It was still a
This act of using a foreign passport after renouncing one’s positive act of representation as a US citizen before the
foreign citizenship is fatal to Arnado’s bid for public office, as it immigration officials of this country.
effectively imposed on him a disqualification to run for an elective
local position.
The COMELEC, in ruling favorably for Arnado, stated "Yet, as
soon as he was in possession of his Philippine passport, the
Arnado’s category of dual citizenship is that by which foreign respondent already used the same in his subsequent travels
citizenship is acquired through a positive act of applying for abroad."44 We cannot agree with the COMELEC. Three months
naturalization. This is distinct from those considered dual citizens from June is September. If indeed, Arnado used his Philippine
passport as soon as he was in possession of it, he would not examination of the ballots may find that some other person than
have used his US passport on 24 November 2009. the candidate declared to have received a plurality by the board of
canvassers actually received the greater number of votes, in
which case the court issues its mandamus to the board of
Besides, Arnado’s subsequent use of his Philippine passport
canvassers to correct the returns accordingly; or it may find that
does not correct the fact that after he renounced his foreign
the manner of holding the election and the returns are so tainted
citizenship and prior to filing his certificate of candidacy, he used
with fraud or illegality that it cannot be determined who received a
his US passport. In the same way that the use of his foreign
plurality of the legally cast ballots. In the latter case, no question
passport does not undo his Oath of Renunciation, his subsequent
as to the correctness of the returns or the manner of casting and
use of his Philippine passport does not undo his earlier use of his
counting the ballots is before the deciding power, and generally
US passport.
the only result can be that the election fails entirely. In the former,
we have a contest in the strict sense of the word, because of the
Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. It is a badge of identity opposing parties are striving for supremacy. If it be found that the
that comes with attendant civil and political rights accorded by successful candidate (according to the board of canvassers)
the state to its citizens. It likewise demands the concomitant duty obtained a plurality in an illegal manner, and that another
to maintain allegiance to one’s flag and country. While those who candidate was the real victor, the former must retire in favor of
acquire dual citizenship by choice are afforded the right of the latter. In the other case, there is not, strictly speaking, a
suffrage, those who seek election or appointment to public office contest, as the wreath of victory cannot be transferred from an
are required to renounce their foreign citizenship to be deserving ineligible candidate to any other candidate when the sole
of the public trust. Holding public office demands full and question is the eligibility of the one receiving a plurality of the
undivided allegiance to the Republic and to no other. legally cast ballots. In the one case the question is as to who
received a plurality of the legally cast ballots; in the other, the
question is confined to the personal character and circumstances
We therefore hold that Arnado, by using his US passport after of a single individual.48 (Emphasis supplied)
renouncing his American citizenship, has recanted the same Oath
of Renunciation he took. Section 40(d) of the Local Government
Code applies to his situation. He is disqualified not only from Note that the sentence where the phrase is found starts with "In
holding the public office but even from becoming a candidate in the other case, there is not, strictly speaking, a contest" in
the May 2010 elections. contrast to the earlier statement, "In the former, we have a contest
in the strict sense of the word, because of the opposing parties
are striving for supremacy."
We now resolve the next issue.
x x x. The fact that he was elected by the people of Sorsogon Maquiling is not a second-placer as
does not excuse this patent violation of the salutary rule limiting he obtained the highest number of
public office and employment only to the citizens of this country. votes from among the qualified
The qualifications prescribed for elective office cannot be erased candidates.
by the electorate alone.
With Arnado’s disqualification, Maquiling then becomes the
The will of the people as expressed through the ballot cannot winner in the election as he obtained the highest number of votes
cure the vice of ineligibility, especially if they mistakenly believed, from among the qualified candidates.
as in this case, that the candidate was qualified. Obviously, this
rule requires strict application when the deficiency is lack of
We have ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v. COMELEC54 and
citizenship. If a person seeks to serve in the Republic of the
Jalosjos v. COMELEC55 that a void COC cannot produce any legal
Philippines, he must owe his total loyalty to this country only,
effect.
abjuring and renouncing all fealty and fidelity to any other
state.51 (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are not
considered at all in determining the winner of an election.
This issue has also been jurisprudentially clarified in Velasco v.
COMELEC52 where the Court ruled that the ruling in Quizon and
Saya-ang cannot be interpreted without qualifications lest Even when the votes for the ineligible candidate are disregarded,
"Election victory x x x becomes a magic formula to bypass the will of the electorate is still respected, and even more so. The
election eligibility requirements."53 votes cast in favor of an ineligible candidate do not constitute the
sole and total expression of the sovereign voice. The votes cast
in favor of eligible and legitimate candidates form part of that
We have ruled in the past that a candidate’s victory in the election
voice and must also be respected.
may be considered a sufficient basis to rule in favor of the
As in any contest, elections are governed by rules that determine It could not have produced any other legal effect except that
the qualifications and disqualifications of those who are allowed Arnado rendered it impossible to effect his disqualification prior
to participate as players. When there are participants who turn to the elections because he filed his answer to the petition when
out to be ineligible, their victory is voided and the laurel is the elections were conducted already and he was already
awarded to the next in rank who does not possess any of the proclaimed the winner.
disqualifications nor lacks any of the qualifications set in the
rules to be eligible as candidates.
To hold that such proclamation is valid is to negate the
prohibitory character of the disqualification which Arnado
There is no need to apply the rule cited in Labo v. possessed even prior to the filing of the certificate of candidacy.
COMELEC56 that when the voters are well aware within the realm The affirmation of Arnado's disqualification, although made long
of notoriety of a candidate’s disqualification and still cast their after the elections, reaches back to the filing of the certificate of
votes in favor said candidate, then the eligible candidate candidacy. Arnado is declared to be not a candidate at all in the
obtaining the next higher number of votes may be deemed May 201 0 elections.
elected. That rule is also a mere obiter that further complicated
the rules affecting qualified candidates who placed second to
Arnado being a non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor should
ineligible ones.
not have been counted. This leaves Maquiling as the qualified
candidate who obtained the highest number of votes. Therefore,
The electorate’s awareness of the candidate’s disqualification is the rule on succession under the Local Government Code will not
not a prerequisite for the disqualification to attach to the apply.
candidate. The very existence of a disqualifying circumstance
makes the candidate ineligible. Knowledge by the electorate of a
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED.
candidate’s disqualification is not necessary before a qualified
The Resolution of the COMELEC En Bane dated 2 February 2011
candidate who placed second to a disqualified one can be
is hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. Respondent ROMMEL
proclaimed as the winner. The second-placer in the vote count is
ARNADO y CAGOCO is disqualified from running for any local
actually the first-placer among the qualified candidates.
elective position. CASAN MACODE MAQUILING is hereby
DECLARED the duly elected Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del
That the disqualified candidate has already been proclaimed and Norte in the 10 May 2010 elections.
has assumed office is of no moment. The subsequent
disqualification based on a substantive ground that existed prior
This Decision is immediately executory.
to the filing of the certificate of candidacy voids not only the COC
but also the proclamation.
Let a copy of this Decision be served personally upon the parties
and the Commission on Elections.
Section 6 of R.A. No. 6646 provides:
No pronouncement as to costs.
Section 6. Effect of Disqualification Case. - Any candidate who
has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified shall not
be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for SO ORDERED.
any reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before
an election to be disqualified and he is voted for and receives the
winning number of votes in such election, the Court or
Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the
action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or
any intervenor, may during the pendency thereof order the
suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
SERENO, J.:
As stipulated during pretrial, accused Trinidad gave ABS-CBN
News Network an exclusive interview some time after the
Before the Court is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of incident, confessing his participation in the Valentine’s Day
Appeals (CA) dated 30 June 2008, which affirmed the Decision of bombing incident. In another exclusive interview on the network,
the Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 05- accused Baharan likewise admitted his role in the bombing
476 and 05-4777 dated 18 October 2005. The latter Decision incident. Finally, accused Asali gave a television interview,
convicted the three accused-appellants – namely, Gamal B. confessing that he had supplied the explosive devices for the 14
Baharan a.k.a. Tapay, Angelo Trinidad a.k.a. Abu Khalil, and February 2005 bombing. The bus conductor identified the
Rohmat Abdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky – of the complex accused Baharan and Trinidad, and confirmed that they were the
crime of multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder, and two men who had entered the RRCG bus on the evening of 14
sentenced them to suffer the penalty of death by lethal injection. February.
The CA modified the sentence to reclusion perpetua as required
by Republic Act No. 9346 (Act Abolishing the Imposition of Death
Penalty). Members of the Abu Sayyaf Group – namely Khaddafy Janjalani,
Gamal B. Baharan, Angelo Trinidad, Gappal Bannah Asali, Jainal
Asali, Rohmat Abdurrohim a.k.a. Abu Jackie or Zaky, and other
Statement of Facts "John" and "Jane Does" – were then charged with multiple
murder and multiple frustrated murder. Only Baharan, Trinidad,
The pertinent facts, as determined by the trial court, are as Asali, and Rohmat were arrested, while the other accused remain
follows: at-large.
On 14 February 2005, an RRCG bus was plying its usual On their arraignment for the multiple murder charge (Crim. Case
southbound route, from its Navotas bus terminal towards its No. 05-476), Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all entered a plea of
Alabang bus terminal via Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA). guilty. On the other hand, upon arraignment for the multiple
Around 6:30 to 7:30 in the evening, while they were about to move frustrated murder charge (Crim. Case No. 05-477), accused Asali
out of the Guadalupe-EDSA southbound bus stop, the bus pled guilty. Accused Trinidad and Baharan pled not guilty.
conductor noticed two men running after the bus. The two Rohmat pled not guilty to both charges. During the pretrial
insisted on getting on the bus, so the conductor obliged and let hearing, the parties stipulated the following:
them in.
1.) The jurisdiction of this court over the offenses charged.
According to Elmer Andales, the bus conductor, he immediately
became wary of the two men, because, even if they got on the bus 2.) That all three accused namely alias Baharan, Trinidad, and
together, the two sat away from each other – one sat two seats Asali admitted knowing one another before February 14, 2005.
behind the driver, while the other sat at the back of the bus. At the
time, there were only 15 passengers inside the bus. He also
noticed that the eyes of one of the men were reddish. When he 3.) All the same three accused likewise admitted that a bomb
approached the person near the driver and asked him whether he exploded in the RRCG bus while the bus was plying the EDSA
was paying for two passengers, the latter looked dumb struck by route fronting the MRT terminal which is in front of the Makati
the question. He then stuttered and said he was paying for two Commercial Center.
and gave PhP20. Andales grew more concerned when the other
man seated at the back also paid for both passengers. At this 4.) Accused Asali admitted knowing the other accused alias
point, Andales said he became more certain that the two were up Rohmat whom he claims taught him how to make explosive
to no good, and that there might be a holdup. devices.
Afterwards, Andales said he became more suspicious because 5.) The accused Trinidad also admitted knowing Rohmat before
both men kept on asking him if the bus was going to stop at Ayala the February 14 bombing incident.
Avenue. The witness also noticed that the man at the back
appeared to be slouching, with his legs stretched out in front of
him and his arms hanging out and hidden from view as if he was 6.) The accused Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali all admitted to
tinkering with something. When Andales would get near the man, causing the bomb explosion inside the RRCG bus which left four
the latter would glare at him. Andales admitted, however, that he people dead and more or less forty persons injured.
did not report the suspicious characters to the police.
7.) Both Baharan and Trinidad agreed to stipulate that within the
As soon as the bus reached the stoplight at the corner of Ayala period March 20-24 each gave separate interviews to the ABS-
Avenue and EDSA, the two men insisted on getting off the bus. CBN news network admitting their participation in the
According to Andales, the bus driver initially did not want to let commission of the said crimes, subject of these cases.
8.) Accused Trinidad and Baharan also admitted to pleading guilty Accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad argue that the trial
to these crimes, because they were guilt-stricken after seeing a court did not conduct a searching inquiry after they had changed
man carrying a child in the first bus that they had entered. their plea from "not guilty" to "guilty." The transcript of
stenographic notes during the 18 April 2005 re-arraignment
before the Makati Regional Trial Court is reproduced below:
9.) Accused Asali likewise admitted that in the middle of March
2005 he gave a television news interview in which he admitted
that he supplied the explosive devices which resulted in this Court : Anyway, I think what we should have to do, considering
explosion inside the RRCG bus and which resulted in the filing of the stipulations that were agreed upon during the last hearing, is
these charges. to address this matter of pleas of not guilty entered for the
frustrated murder charges by the two accused, Mr. Trinidad and
Mr. Baharan, because if you will recall they entered pleas of guilty
10.) Finally, accused Baharan, Trinidad, and Asali admitted that
to the multiple murder charges, but then earlier pleas of not guilty
they are members of the Abu Sayyaf.1
for the frustrated multiple murder charges remain… [I]s that not
inconsistent considering the stipulations that were entered into
In the light of the pretrial stipulations, the trial court asked during the initial pretrial of this case? [If] you will recall, they
whether accused Baharan and Trinidad were amenable to admitted to have caused the bomb explosion that led to the death
changing their "not guilty" pleas to the charge of multiple of at least four people and injury of about forty other persons and
frustrated murder, considering that they pled "guilty" to the so under the circumstances, Atty Peña, have you discussed this
heavier charge of multiple murder, creating an apparent matter with your clients?
inconsistency in their pleas. Defense counsel conferred with
accused Baharan and Trinidad and explained to them the
………
consequences of the pleas. The two accused acknowledged the
inconsistencies and manifested their readiness for re-
arraignment. After the Information was read to them, Baharan and Atty. Peña : Then we should be given enough time to talk with
Trinidad pled guilty to the charge of multiple frustrated murder.2 them. I haven’t conferred with them about this with regard to the
multiple murder case.
After being discharged as state witness, accused Asali testified
that while under training with the Abu Sayyaf in 2004, Rohmat, ………
a.k.a Abu Jackie or Zaky, and two other persons taught him how
to make bombs and explosives. The trainees were told that they
Court : Okay. So let us proceed now. Atty. Peña, can you assist
were to wage battles against the government in the city, and that
the two accused because if they are interested in withdrawing
their first mission was to plant bombs in malls, the Light Railway
their [pleas], I want to hear it from your lips.
Transit (LRT), and other parts of Metro Manila.
I. The trial court gravely erred in accepting accused-appellants’ COURT : All right. So after the information was re-read to the
plea of guilt despite insufficiency of searching inquiry into the accused, they have withdrawn their pleas of not guilty and
voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the changed it to the pleas of guilty to the charge of frustrated
said plea. murder. Thank you. Are there any matters you need to address at
pretrial now? If there are none, then I will terminate pretrial and
accommodate…5
II. The trial court gravely erred in finding that the guilt of accused-
appellants for the crimes charged had been proven beyond
reasonable doubt.4 As early as in People v. Apduhan, the Supreme Court has ruled
that "all trial judges … must refrain from accepting with alacrity
an accused's plea of guilty, for while justice demands a speedy
First Assignment of Error administration, judges are duty bound to be extra solicitous in
seeing to it that when an accused pleads guilty, he understands
fully the meaning of his plea and the import of an inevitable the conviction must be sustained, because then it is predicated
conviction."6 Thus, trial court judges are required to observe the not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but on evidence
following procedure under Section 3, Rule 116 of the Rules of proving his commission of the offense charged.14 (Emphasis
Court: supplied.)
SEC. 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. — In their second assignment of error, accused-appellants assert
When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. They pointed
shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full out that the testimony of the conductor was merely
comprehension of the consequences of his plea and shall require circumstantial, while that of Asali as to the conspiracy was
the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of insufficient.
culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf.
(Emphasis supplied)
Insofar as accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad are
concerned, the evidence for the prosecution, in addition to that
The requirement to conduct a searching inquiry applies more so which can be drawn from the stipulation of facts, primarily
in cases of re-arraignment. In People v. Galvez, the Court noted consisted of the testimonies of the bus conductor, Elmer
that since accused-appellant's original plea was "not guilty," the Andales, and of the accused-turned-state-witness, Asali. Andales
trial court should have exerted careful effort in inquiring into why positively identified accused Baharan and Trinidad as the two
he changed his plea to "guilty."7 According to the Court: men who had acted suspiciously while inside the bus; who had
insisted on getting off the bus in violation of a Makati ordinance;
and who had scampered away from the bus moments before the
The stringent procedure governing the reception of a plea of guilt,
bomb exploded. On the other hand, Asali testified that he had
especially in a case involving the death penalty, is imposed upon
given accused Baharan and Trinidad the TNT used in the
the trial judge in order to leave no room for doubt on the
bombing incident in Makati City. The guilt of the accused Baharan
possibility that the accused might have misunderstood the nature
and Trinidad was sufficiently established by these corroborating
of the charge and the consequences of the plea.8
testimonies, coupled with their respective judicial admissions
(pretrial stipulations) and extrajudicial confessions (exclusive
Likewise, the requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should television interviews, as they both stipulated during pretrial) that
not be deemed satisfied in cases in which it was the defense they were indeed the perpetrators of the Valentine’s Day
counsel who explained the consequences of a "guilty" plea to the bombing.15 Accordingly, the Court upholds the findings of guilt
accused, as it appears in this case. In People v. Alborida, this made by the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Court found that there was still an improvident plea of guilty, even
if the accused had already signified in open court that his counsel
Anent accused Rohmat, the evidence for the prosecution
had explained the consequences of the guilty plea; that he
consisted of the testimony of accused-turned-state-witness Asali.
understood the explanation of his counsel; that the accused
Below is a reproduction of the transcript of stenographic notes on
understood that the penalty of death would still be meted out to
the state prosecutor’s direct examination of state-witness Asali
him; and that he had not been intimidated, bribed, or threatened.9
during the 26 May 2005 trial:
Second Assignment of Error A : Our first mission was to plant a bomb in the malls, LRT, and
other parts of Metro Manila, sir.16
In People v. Oden, the Court declared that even if the requirement
of conducting a searching inquiry was not complied with, "[t]he The witness then testified that he kept eight kilos of TNT for
manner by which the plea of guilt is made … loses much of great accused Baharan and Trinidad.
significance where the conviction can be based on independent
evidence proving the commission by the person accused of the
offense charged."13 Thus, in People v. Nadera, the Court stated: Q : Now, going back to the bomb. Mr. witness, did you know what
happened to the 2 kilos of bomb that Trinidad and Tapay took
from you sometime in November 2004?
Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilt are set aside
only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court
relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused,
A : That was the explosive that he planted in the G-liner, which ………
did not explode.
Q : How many explosives did they get from you, Mr. witness, at
Q : How did you know, Mr. witness? that time?
A : He was the one who told me, Mr. Angelo Trinidad, sir. A : They got 2 kilos TNT bomb, sir.
……… Q : Did they tell you, Mr. witness, where are they going to use that
explosive?
Q : What happened next, Mr. witness, when the bomb did not
explode, as told to you by Trinidad? A : No, sir.
A : On December 29, Angelo Trinidad got 2 more kilos of TNT Q : Do you know, Mr. witness, what happened to the third batch of
bombs. explosives, which were taken from you by Trinidad and Tapay?
……… ………
Q : Did Trinidad tell you why he needed another amount of A : That is the bomb that exploded in Makati, sir.
explosive on that date, December 29, 2004? Will you kindly tell us
the reason why?
Q : Why did you know, Mr. witness?
………
A : Because I was called in the evening of February 14 by Abu
Solaiman. He told me not to leave the house because the
A : He told me that Abu Solaiman instructed me to get the TNT so explosive that were taken by Tapay and Angelo Trinidad
that he could detonate a bomb exploded.
……… ………
Q : Were there any other person, besides Abu Solaiman, who Q : Was there any other call during that time, Mr. Witness?
called you up, with respect to the taking of the explosives from
you?
………
………
A : If I am not mistaken, sir, on February 13, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015 threatened that there would be loss of life if they persisted in
harvesting the abaca. Cabero reported the incident to Anecita
Pacate and the police.11
MONICO LIGTAS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent. On July 2, 2000, Cabero and Cipres went back to the plantation
and conducted a survey on the condition of the plantation. They
DECISION found that 1,000 kilos of abaca, valued at P28.00 per kilo, were
harvested by Ligtas.12
LEONEN, J.: On July 3, 2000, Ligtas and Anecita Pacate confronted each other
before the Sogod Police Station.13Ligtas admitted to harvesting
"Bakit niya babawiin ang aking saka?" tanong ni Tata Selo. the abaca but claimed that he was the plantation owner.14
"Dinaya ko na ba siya sa partihan? Tinuso ko na ba siya? Siya
ang may-ari ng lupa at kasama lang niya ako. Hindi ba't kaya The defense presented three (3) witnesses during trial: Ligtas;
maraming nagagalit sa akin ay dahil sa ayaw kong magpamigay Pablo Palo, his neighbor; and Delia Ligtas, his wife.15 According
ng kahit isang pinangko kung anihan?" to Ligtas, he had been a tenant of Anecita Pacate and her late
husband, Andres Pacate since 1993.16 Andres Pacate installed
Hindi pa rin umaalis sa harap ng istaked si Tata Selo. Nakahawak him as tenant of the 1.5 to two hectares of land involved in the
pa rin siya sa rehas. Nakatingin siya sa labas ngunit wala siyang criminal case.17
sino mang tinitingnan.
Ligtas allegedly "made his first harvest in 1997."18 He then gave
"Binabawi po niya ang aking saka," sumbong ni Tata Selo. "Saan Anecita Pacate her share to the harvest.19 However, he could not
papo ako pupunta kung wala na akong saka?" remember the exact amount anymore.20 Previously, Ligtas and
Pablo Palo were workers in another land, around 15 hectares,
Habang nakakapit sa rehas at nakatingin sa labas, sinasabi owned by Anecita Pacate and Andres Pacate.21
niyang lahat ay kinuha na sa kanila, lahat, ay! ang lahat ay kinuha
na sa kanila. Ligtas alleged that on June 28, 2000, Anecita Pacate sent workers
to harvest abaca from the land he cultivated. Ligtas prevented the
men from harvesting the abaca since he was the rightful tenant of
- "TataSelo" (1963) by Rogelio R. Sikat the land.22
The uncontested declaration of the Department of Agrarian Furthermore, Ligtas denied harvesting abaca at the plantation on
Reform Adjudication Board that Monico Ligtas was a tenant June 29, 2000. He claimed that he was with Cabero and Cipres
negates a finding of theft beyond reasonable doubt. Tenants attending a barangay fiesta at Sitio Hubasan, San Juan, Sogod,
having rights to the harvest cannot be deemed to have taken their Southern Leyte, when the alleged harvesting happened.23
own produce.
Meanwhile, Ligtas filed a Complaint before the Department of
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) of Sogod, Southern
Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals Decision2 dated Leyte for Maintenance of Peaceful Possession on November 21,
March 16, 2010 and the Resolution3 dated February 2, 2012.4 The 2000.24 On January 22, 2002, the DARAB rendered the
Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision5 of the Regional Trial Decision25 ruling that Ligtas was a bona fide tenant of the land.26
Court finding Monico Ligtas (Ligtas) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of theft.6 While records are bereft as to when the DARAB Decision was
formally offered as evidence before the trial court, records are
Ligtas was charged with the crime of theft under Article 308 of the clear that the DARAB Decision was considered by both the trial
Revised Penal Code.7 The Information court27 and Court of Appeals28 and without any objection on the
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary part of the People of the Philippines.29
In the Decision dated August 16, 2006, the Regional Trial Court
That on or about the 29th day of June 2000 at Sitio Lamak, held that "the prosecution was able to prove the elements of
Barangay San Juan, Municipality of Sogod, Province of Southern theft[.]"30 Ligtas' "defense of tenancy was not supported by
Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable concrete and substantial evidence nor was his claim of harvest
Court, the above-named accused, with intent of gain, entered into sharing between him and [Anecita Pacate] duly corroborated by
the abaca plantation belonging to one Anecita Pacate, and once any witness."31 His "defense of alibi cannot prevail over the
inside the plantation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and positive identification ... by prosecution witnesses."32
feloniously harvested 1,000 kilos of abaca fibers, valued at
Php29,000.00 at Php29.00 per kilo, without the consent of said The dispositive portion of the Decision
owner, Anecita Pacate, to her damage and prejudice in the reads:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
aforestated amount of Twenty Nine Thousand Pesos
(Php29,000.00), Philippine currency.
WHEREFORE, finding the accused Monico Ligtas guilty beyond
CONTRARY TO LAW.8ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary reasonable doubt of the crime of Theft, this court hereby renders
judgment, sentencing him:
SO ORDERED.52ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
I
In Salazar v. De Leon,90 this court upheld the Department of But where there is identity of parties in the first and second
Agrarian Reform's primary jurisdiction over agrarian disputes, cases, but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is
which includes the relationship between landowners and conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly
tenants.91 The DARAB Decision is conclusive and binding on controverted and determined and not as to matters merely
courts when supported by substantial evidence.92 This court ruled involved therein. This is the concept of res judicata known as
that administrative res judicata exists in that "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated differently, any right, fact
case:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in
the determination of an action before a competent court in which
judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the
Significantly, respondent did not appeal the Decision dated 17
judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the
November 1995 of the DARAB in DARAB Case # II-380-ISA'94; parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand,
consequently, the same has attained finality and constitutes res purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same.
judicata on the issue of petitioner's status as a tenant of
respondent.
Thus, if a particular point or question is in issue in the second
action, and the judgment will depend on the determination of that
Res judicata is a concept applied in the review of lower court
particular point or question, a former judgment between the same
decisions in accordance with the hierarchy of courts. But
parties or their privies will be final and conclusive in the second if
jurisprudence has also recognized the rule of administrative res that same point or question was in issue and adjudicated in the
judicata: "The rule which forbids the reopening of a matter once
first suit. Identity of cause of action is not required but merely
judicially determined by competent authority applies as well to
identity of issue.
the judicial and quasi-judicial facts of public, executive or
administrative officers and boards acting within their jurisdiction
The elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar
as to the judgments of courts having general judicial powers. It the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been
has been declared that whenever final adjudication of persons rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter
invested with power to decide on the property and rights of the
and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be a
citizen is examinable by the Supreme Court, upon a writ of error judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be as between the first
or a certiorari , such final adjudication may be pleaded as res and second action, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes
judicata." To be sure, early jurisprudence was already mindful
of action. Should identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action be shown in the two cases, then res judicata in its aspect upheld the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission
as a "bar by prior judgment" would apply. If as between the two in a separate case, which declared the absence of an employer-
cases, only identity of parties can be shown, but not identical employee relationship and had attained finality.106 This court held
causes of action, then res judicata as "conclusiveness of that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
judgment" applies.97 (Emphasis supplied, citations
omitted)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
The reasons for establishing the principle of "collusiveness of
judgment" are founded on sound public policy. ... It is allowable
In Martillano v. Court of Appeals,98 the DARAB Decision finding to reason back from a judgment to the basis on which it stands,
for the existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties upon the obvious principle that where a conclusion is
was declared by this court as conclusive on the parties. 99 As in indisputable, and could have been drawn only from certain
this case, the DARAB Decision100 in Martillano attained finality premises, the premises are equally indisputable with the
when the landowner did not appeal the Decision.101 This court conclusion. When a fact has been once determined in the course
ruled that the doctrine of res of a judicial proceeding, and a final judgment has been rendered
judicata applies:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary in accordance therewith, it cannot be again litigated between the
same parties without virtually impeaching the correctness of the
former decision, which, from motives of public policy, the law
Under the afore-cited sections of RA 6657, the Department of
does not permit to be done.
Agrarian Reform is empowered, through its adjudicating arm the
regional and provincial adjudication boards, to resolve agrarian
Res judicata has two concepts. The first is bar by prior judgment
disputes and controversies on all matters pertaining to the
under Rule 39, Section 47 (b), and the second is conclusiveness
implementation of the agrarian law. Section 51 thereof provides
of judgment under Rule 39, Section 47 (c). Both concepts are
that the decision of the DARAB attains finality after the lapse of
founded on the principle of estoppel, and are based on the
fifteen (15) days and no appeal was interposed therefrom by any
salutary public policy against unnecessary multiplicity of suits.
of the parties.
Like the splitting of causes of action, res judicata is in pursuance
of such policy. Matters settled by a Court's final judgment should
In the instant case, the determination of the DARAB in DARAB
not be litigated upon or invoked again. Relitigation of issues
Case No. 062-Bul '89, there being no appeal interposed therefrom,
already settled merely burdens the Courts and the taxpayers,
attained finality. Accordingly, the matter regarding the status of
creates uneasiness and confusion, and wastes valuable time and
Martillano as a tenant farmer and the validity of the CLT and
energy that could be devoted to worthier cases.107 (Citations
Emancipation Patents issued in his favor are settled and no
omitted)ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
longer open to doubt and controversy.
Theft is likewise committed by: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals
Decision dated March 16, 2010 and the Resolution dated February
2, 2012 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Monico Ligtas
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to is ACQUITTED of the crime of theft under Article 308 of the
deliver the same to the local authorities or to its Revised Penal Code. If detained, he is ordered
owner;cralawlawlibrary immediately RELEASED, unless he is confined for any other
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the
lawful cause. Any amount paid by way of a bailbond is
property of another, shall remove or make use of the ordered RETURNED.
fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an enclosed estate or a field
SO ORDERED.
where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another
and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish
upon the same or shall gather fruits, cereals, or other
forest or farm products.
That on or about the 4th day of February 2003, at about 8:45 in the Petitioner asserted that on his return from the errand, he was
morning in Barangay Tugos, Sorsogon City, Philippines, the said summoned by Esternon to the bedroom and once inside, the
accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously officer closed the door and asked him to lift the mattress on the
have in his possession, custody and control two (2) plastic bed. And as he was doing as told, Esternon stopped him and
sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride [or] "shabu" with an ordered him to lift the portion of the headboard. In that instant,
aggregate weight of 0.0743 gram, and four empty sachets Esternon showed him "sachet of shabu" which according to him
containing "shabu" residue, without having been previously came from a pillow on the bed.20 Petitioner's account in its
authorized by law to possess the same. entirety was corroborated in its material respects by
Norma, barangay kagawad Licup and Sheila in their testimonies.
CONTRARY TO LAW.8 Norma and Sheila positively declared that petitioner was not in
the house for the entire duration of the search because at one
point he was sent by Esternon to the store to buy cigarettes while
Petitioner entered a negative plea.9 At the ensuing trial, the Sheila was being searched by the lady officer.21Licup for his part
prosecution presented Bolanos, Arroyo and Esternon as testified on the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the
witnesses. plastic sachets. He recounted that after the five empty sachets
were found, he went out of the bedroom and into the living room
Taking the witness stand, Bolanos, the leader of the raiding team, and after about three minutes, Esternon, who was left inside the
testified on the circumstances surrounding the search as follows: bedroom, exclaimed that he had just found two filled sachets.22
that he and his men were allowed entry into the house by
petitioner after the latter was shown the search warrant; that upon On 20 June 2004 the trial court rendered its Decision declaring
entering the premises, he ordered Esternon and barangay petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged.
kagawad Licup, whose assistance had previously been requested Petitioner was condemned to prison for twelve years (12) and one
in executing the warrant, to conduct the search; that the rest of (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.23 The
the police team positioned themselves outside the house to make trial court reasoned that the fact that shabu was found in the
sure that nobody flees; that he was observing the conduct of the house of petitioner was prima facie evidence of
search from about a meter away; that the search conducted
petitioner's animus possidendi sufficient to convict him of the and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
charge inasmuch as things which a person possesses or over chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
which he exercises acts of ownership are presumptively owned taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of
by him. It also noted petitioner's failure to ascribe ill motives to the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
the police officers to fabricate charges against him.24 possession of the same.37
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal.25 In his Appeal While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard
Brief26 filed with the Court of Appeals, petitioner called the because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken
attention of the court to certain irregularities in the manner by chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the
which the search of his house was conducted. For its part, the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) advanced that on the identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is
contrary, the prosecution evidence sufficed for petitioner's critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its
conviction and that the defense never advanced any proof to uniqueness.38 The same standard likewise obtains in case the
show that the members of the raiding team was improperly evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering,
motivated to hurl false charges against him and hence the contamination39 and even substitution and exchange.40 In other
presumption that they had regularly performed their duties words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration
should prevail.27 or tampering—without regard to whether the same is advertent or
otherwise not—dictates the level of strictness in the application
of the chain of custody rule.
On 27 January 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed
decision affirming the judgment of the trial court but modifying
the prison sentence to an indeterminate term of twelve (12) years Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect
as minimum to seventeen (17) years as maximum.28 Petitioner to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that
moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form
appellate court.29Hence, the instant petition which raises to substances familiar to people in their daily lives.41 Graham vs.
substantially the same issues. State42 positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a
substance later analyzed as heroin—was handled by two police
officers prior to examination who however did not testify in court
In its Comment,30 the OSG bids to establish that the raiding team
on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was
had regularly performed its duties in the conduct of the
in their possession—was excluded from the prosecution
search.31 It points to petitioner's incredulous claim that he was
evidence, the court pointing out that the white powder seized
framed up by Esternon on the ground that the discovery of the
could have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or
two filled sachets was made in his and Licup's presence. It
baking powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by records
likewise notes that petitioner's bare denial cannot defeat the
or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least
positive assertions of the prosecution and that the same does not
between the time it came into the possession of police officers
suffice to overcome the prima facie existence of animus
until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition,
possidendi.
testimony of the state as to the laboratory's findings is
inadmissible.43
This argument, however, hardly holds up to what is revealed by
the records.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not
readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis
Prefatorily, although the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot
great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule does reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the
not apply where facts of weight and substance have been possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the
overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution
appeal.32 In the case at bar, several circumstances obtain which, if of substances from other cases—by accident or otherwise—in
properly appreciated, would warrant a conclusion different from which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence
that arrived at by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the
same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases
involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item
necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a prohibited with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that
substance be established with moral certainty, together with the
the original item has either been exchanged with another or been
fact that the same is not authorized by law. The dangerous drug contaminated or tampered with.
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 A mere fleeting glance at the records readily raises significant
of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.34 Be that as it doubts as to the identity of the sachets of shabuallegedly seized
may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to from petitioner. Of the people who came into direct contact with
create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to the seized objects, only Esternon and Arroyo testified for the
sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, specific purpose of establishing the identity of the evidence.
the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is Gallinera, to whom Esternon supposedly handed over the
the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be confiscated sachets for recording and marking, as well as Garcia,
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite the person to whom Esternon directly handed over the seized
to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody requirement items for chemical analysis at the crime laboratory, were not
performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts presented in court to establish the circumstances under which
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.35 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
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule court as evidence?
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 The prosecution's evidence is incomplete to provide an
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up affirmative answer. Considering that it was Gallinera who
to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every recorded and marked the seized items, his testimony in court is
person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from crucial to affirm whether the exhibits were the same items handed
whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while over to him by Esternon at the place of seizure and acknowledge
in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received the initials marked thereon as his own. The same is true of Garcia
who could have, but nevertheless failed, to testify on the cannot benefit the prosecution as it failed to offer any acceptable
circumstances under which she received the items from justification for Esternon's course of action.
Esternon, what she did with them during the time they were in her
possession until before she delivered the same to Arroyo for
Likewise, Esternon's failure to deliver the seized items to the
analysis.
court demonstrates a departure from the directive in the search
warrant that the items seized be immediately delivered to the trial
The prosecution was thus unsuccessful in discharging its burden court with a true and verified inventory of the same, 45 as required
of establishing the identity of the seized items because it failed to by Rule 126, Section 1246 of the Rules of Court. People v.
offer not only the testimony of Gallinera and Garcia but also any Go47 characterized this requirement as mandatory in order to
sufficient explanation for such failure. In effect, there is no preclude the substitution of or tampering with said items by
reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the exhibits inasmuch interested parties.48 Thus, as a reasonable safeguard, People vs.
as it failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the Del Castillo49 declared that the approval by the court which issued
exhibits, which cannot but inure to its own detriment. This holds the search warrant is necessary before police officers can retain
true not only with respect to the two filled sachets but also to the the property seized and without it, they would have no authority
five sachets allegedly containing morsels of shabu. to retain possession thereof and more so to deliver the same to
another agency.50 Mere tolerance by the trial court of a contrary
practice does not make the practice right because it is violative of
Also, contrary to what has been consistently claimed by the
the mandatory requirements of the law and it thereby defeats the
prosecution that the search and seizure was conducted in a
very purpose for the enactment.51
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 petitioner's house until Given the foregoing deviations of police officer Esternon from the
the submission of the seized items to the laboratory for analysis. standard and normal procedure in the implementation of the
The Court takes note of the unrebutted testimony of petitioner, warrant and in taking post-seizure custody of the evidence, the
corroborated by that of his wife, that prior to the discovery of the blind reliance by the trial court and the Court of Appeals on the
two filled sachets petitioner was sent out of his house to buy presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is
cigarettes at a nearby store. Equally telling is the testimony of manifestly misplaced. The presumption of regularity is merely
Bolanos that he posted some of the members of the raiding team just that—a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and
at the door of petitioner's house in order to forestall the likelihood which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as
of petitioner fleeing the scene. By no stretch of logic can it be binding truth.52 Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot
conclusively explained why petitioner was sent out of his house preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if
on an errand when in the first place the police officers were in fact not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.53 In the
apprehensive that he would flee to evade arrest. This fact present case the lack of conclusive identification of the illegal
assumes prime importance because the two filled sachets were drugs allegedly seized from petitioner, coupled with the
allegedly discovered by Esternon immediately after petitioner irregularity in the manner by which the same were placed under
returned to his house from the errand, such that he was not able police custody before offered in court, strongly militates a finding
to witness the conduct of the search during the brief but crucial of guilt.
interlude that he was away.
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the
It is also strange that, as claimed by Esternon, it was petitioner presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused
himself who handed to him the items to be searched including the lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own
pillow from which the two filled sachets allegedly fell. Indeed, it is evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. The rule is
contrary to ordinary human behavior that petitioner would hand invariable whatever may be the reputation of the accused, for the
over the said pillow to Esternon knowing fully well that illegal law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is
drugs are concealed therein. In the same breath, the manner by shown.54 In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability
which the search of Sheila's body was brought up by a member of hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably
the raiding team also raises serious doubts as to the necessity becomes a matter of right.
thereof. The declaration of one of the police officers that he saw
Sheila tuck something in her underwear certainly diverted the
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
attention of the members of petitioner's household away from the
dated 27 January 2006 affirming with modification the judgment
search being conducted by Esternon prior to the discovery of the
of conviction of the Regional Trial Court of Sorsogon City, Branch
two filled sachets. Lest it be omitted, the Court likewise takes
52, and its Resolution dated 30 May 2006 denying reconsideration
note of Esternon's suspicious presence in the bedroom while
thereof, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Junie Malillin y
Sheila was being searched by a lady officer. The confluence of
Lopez is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and is accordingly
these circumstances by any objective standard of behavior
ordered immediately released from custody unless he is being
contradicts the prosecution's claim of regularity in the exercise of
lawfully held for another offense.
duty.
The CA further ruled that the prosecution was able to sufficiently In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section
prove an unbroken chain of custody of the shabu. It explained 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following
that PO3 Almarez sealed the plastic sachet seized from the elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
appellant, marked it with his initials, and transmitted it to the PNP and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
Crime Laboratory for examination. PSI Quintero conducted a the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale
qualitative examination and found the specimen positive for the transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of
presence of shabu. According to the CA, the prosecution was the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that
able to prove that the substance seized was the same specimen establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown
submitted to the laboratory and presented in court, by presenting the object of the illegal transaction.26 To remove
notwithstanding that this specimen was turned over to the crime any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized
laboratory only after two days. drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug
presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered
from the appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or
In his brief,23 the appellant claims that the lower courts erred in
for drug pushing under R.A. No. 9165 fails.27
convicting him of the crime charged despite the prosecution’s
failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He harps on
the fact that the police did not conduct a prior surveillance on him The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is
before conducting the buy-bust operation. embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
which states:
The appellant further contends that the prosecution failed to
show an unbroken chain of custody in the handling of the seized (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
drug. He claims that there was no evidence to show when the the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
markings were done. Moreover, a period of two days had elapsed confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
from the time the shabu was confiscated to the time it was the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
forwarded to the crime laboratory for examination. 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
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters with the
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
argument that the chain of custody of the shabu was sufficiently
thereof[.]
established. It explained that the shabu was turned over by the
police officers to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where it was found
by the forensic chemist to be positive for the presence of shabu. This is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of
The OSG likewise claimed that the appellant failed to rebut the the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by reads:
the police. The OSG further added that a prior surveillance is not
indispensable to a prosecution for illegal sale of drugs.24
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
THE COURT’S RULING 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
After due consideration, we resolve to acquit the appellant for the
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
Specifically, the prosecution failed to show that the police
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
complied with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph
and with the chain of custody requirement of this Act.
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 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs 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
Act: A Brief Background
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
R.A. No. 9165 was enacted in 2002 to pursue the State’s policy to and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]
"safeguard the integrity of its territory and the well-being of its
citizenry particularly the youth, from the harmful effects of
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required
dangerous drugs on their physical and mental well-being, and to
because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it
defend the same against acts or omissions detrimental to their
indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering,
development and preservation."
alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.28 The
records of the present case are bereft of evidence showing that
R.A. No. 9165 repealed and superseded R.A. No. 6425, known as the buy-bust team followed the outlined procedure despite its
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Realizing that dangerous drugs mandatory terms. The deficiency is patent from the following
are one of the most serious social ills of the society at present, exchanges at the trial:
Congress saw the need to further enhance the efficacy of the law
against dangerous drugs. The new law thus mandates the
PROSECUTOR [EMERSON TURINGAN]:
government to pursue an intensive and unrelenting campaign
against the trafficking and use of dangerous drugs and other
similar substances through an integrated system of planning, Q: After you handed this buy-bust money to the accused, what
implementation and enforcement of anti-drug abuse policies, happened next?
programs and projects.25
[PO3 ALMAREZ:]
A: When the shabu was already with me and I gave him the We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of
money[,] I signaled the two, Captain Jaime de Vera and SPO1 Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible under
Balido, sir. field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and
cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in
the handling of confiscated evidence. For this reason, the last
xxxx
sentence of the implementing rules provides that "non-
compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
Q: After you gave that signal, what happened? 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
A: Then they approached us and helped me in arresting Felimon
said items[.]" Thus, noncompliance with the strict directive of
Pagaduan, sir. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the
prosecution’s case; police procedures in the handling of
Q: After Pagaduan was arrested, what happened next? confiscated evidence may still have some lapses, as in the
present case. These lapses, however, must be recognized and
explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity
A: After arresting Pagaduan[,] we brought him directly in Diadi and evidentiary value of the evidence seized must be shown to
Police Station, sir. have been preserved.39
Q: What happened when you brought the accused to the Police In the present case, the prosecution did not bother to offer any
Station in Diadi? explanation to justify the failure of the police to conduct the
required physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs.
A: When we were already in Diadi Police Station, we first put him The apprehending team failed to show why an inventory and
in jail in the Municipal Jail of Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya, sir. photograph of the seized evidence had not been made either in
the place of seizure and arrest or at the nearest police station (as
required by the Implementing Rules in case of warrantless
Q: What did you do with the shabu? arrests). We emphasize that for the saving clause to apply, it is
important that the prosecution explain the reasons behind the
A: The request for laboratory examination was prepared and was procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized
brought to the Crime Lab. of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, sir. evidence had been preserved.40 In other words, the justifiable
ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact. The court
cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.41
xxxx
At the trial, respondent and her witness Grace Murillo testified. 3. To pay the costs of suit.
Petitioner was declared to have waived his right to present
evidence and the case was considered submitted for decision
SO ORDERED.[9]
based on respondent's evidence.
Pictures taken of the mother and her child together with the
With our finding that there was no abuse of discretion in the trial alleged father are inconclusive evidence to prove
court's denial of the motion for postponement filed by petitioner's paternity.[31] Exhibits "E" and "F"[32] showing petitioner and
counsel, petitioner's contention that he was deprived of his day in respondent inside the rented apartment unit thus have scant
court must likewise fail. The essence of due process is that a evidentiary value. The Statement of Account[33] (Exhibit "C") from
party is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit the Good Samaritan General Hospital where respondent herself
any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. Where a was indicated as the payee is likewise incompetent to prove that
party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the petitioner is the father of her child notwithstanding petitioner's
proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of admission in his answer that he shouldered the expenses in the
deprivation of due process. If the opportunity is not availed of, it delivery of respondent's child as an act of charity.
is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional
guarantee.[23] As to the handwritten notes[34] (Exhibits "D" to "D-13") of
petitioner and respondent showing their exchange of affectionate
We now proceed to the main issue of whether the trial and words and romantic trysts, these, too, are not sufficient to
establish Christian Paulo's filiation to petitioner as they were not 2" and "E-3", and "D-6"), or thru Merceditas (sic) herself (TSN, p.
signed by petitioner and contained no statement of admission by 40, 5/17/74) and sometimes in the form of a check as the Manila
petitioner that he is the father of said child. Thus, even if these Banking Corporation Check No. 81532 (Exh. "G") and the
notes were authentic, they do not qualify under Article 172 (2) vis- signature appearing therein which was identified by Leoncia as
à- vis Article 175 of the Family Code which admits as competent that of Artemio because Artemio often gives her checks and
evidence of illegitimate filiation an admission of filiation in a Artemio would write the check at home and saw Artemio sign the
private handwritten instrument signed by the parent concerned.[35] check (TSN, p. 49, 7/18/73). Both Artemio and Nilda admitted that
the check and signature were those of Artemio (TSN, p. 53,
Petitioner's reliance on our ruling in Lim v. Court of Appeals[36] is 10/17/77; TSN, p. 19, 10/9/78).
misplaced. In the said case, the handwritten letters of petitioner
contained a clear admission that he is the father of private During the time that Artemio and Leoncia were living as husband
respondent's daughter and were signed by him. The Court therein and wife, Artemio has shown concern as the father of Merceditas
considered the totality of evidence which established beyond (sic). When Merceditas (sic) was in Grade 1 at the St. Joseph
reasonable doubt that petitioner was indeed the father of private Parochial School, Artemio signed the Report Card of Merceditas
respondent's daughter. On the other hand, in Ilano v. Court of (sic) (Exh. "H") for the fourth and fifth grading period(s) (Exh. "H-
Appeals,[37] the Court sustained the appellate court's finding that 1" and "H-2") as the parent of Merceditas (sic). Those signatures
private respondent's evidence to establish her filiation with and of Artemio [were] both identified by Leoncia and Merceditas (sic)
paternity of petitioner was overwhelming, particularly the latter's because Artemio signed Exh. "H-1" and "H-2" at their residence in
public acknowledgment of his amorous relationship with private the presence of Leoncia, Merceditas (sic) and of Elynia (TSN, p.
respondent's mother, and private respondent as his own child 57, 7/18/73; TSN, p. 28, 10/1/73). x x x.
through acts and words, her testimonial evidence to that effect
was fully supported by documentary evidence. The Court thus xxx xxx xxx
ruled that respondent had adduced sufficient proof of continuous
possession of status of a spurious child.
When Artemio run as a candidate in the Provincial Board of
Cavite[,] Artemio gave Leoncia his picture with the following
Here, while the CA held that Christian Paulo Salas could not claim dedication: "To Nene, with best regards, Temiong". (Exh. "I"). (pp.
open and continuous possession of status of an illegitimate child, 19-20, Appellant's Brief)
it nevertheless considered the testimonial evidence sufficient
proof to establish his filiation to petitioner. The mere denial by defendant of his signature is not sufficient to
offset the totality of the evidence indubitably showing that the
signature thereon belongs to him. The entry in the Certificate of
An illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed
Live Birth that Leoncia and Artemio was falsely stated therein as
filiation by "any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and
married does not mean that Leoncia is not appellee's daughter.
special laws," like his baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a
This particular entry was caused to be made by Artemio himself
family Bible in which his name has been entered, common
in order to avoid embarrassment.[39]
reputation respecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the
testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible
under Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.[38] Reviewing the records,
we find the totality of respondent's evidence insufficient to In sum, we hold that the testimonies of respondent and Murillo,
establish that petitioner is the father of Christian Paulo. by themselves are not competent proof of paternity and the
totality of respondent's evidence failed to establish Christian
The testimonies of respondent and Murillo as to the Paulo's filiation to petitioner.
circumstances of the birth of Christian Paulo, petitioner's
financial support while respondent lived in Murillo's apartment
Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof
and his regular visits to her at the said apartment, though replete
is required to establish paternity and filiation. An order for
with details, do not approximate the "overwhelming evidence,
recognition and support may create an unwholesome situation or
documentary and testimonial" presented in Ilano. In that case, we
may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it
sustained the appellate court's ruling anchored on the following
must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear
factual findings by the appellate court which was quoted at length
and convincing evidence.[40
in the ponencia:
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 209588 February 18, 2015 prepared a Certificate of Inventory and a Request for Laboratory
Examination. Both the drugs and Rosauro were then turned over
to the Crime laboratory.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ERIC ROSAURO y BONGCAWIL, Accused-Appellant. On the basis of the request made by Larot, Police Chief Inspector
Ma. Leocy Mag-abo, the Forensic Chemical Officer of PNP Crime
Laboratory conducted a laboratory examination on the contents
PEREZ, J.:
of the sachet, on accused-appellant, and the marked money. The
examination of the seized item yielded positive result for
For the consideration of the Court is an appeal of the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu); while the accused-
Decision1 dated 19 June 2013 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA- appellant and the marked money tested positive for the presence
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00552- MIN, which affirmed the Judgment2 dated of ultra-violet fluorescent powder.6
24 November 2006 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cagayan de
Oro City, Branch 25 in Criminal Case No. 2004-856, finding
For his part, accused-appellant claims that he was merely a victim
accused-appellant Eric Rosauro y Bongcawil (accused-appellant)
of instigation:
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu under
Sec. 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165) or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, sentencing him to Accused-appellant Rosauro, on the other hand, tells a different
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering him to pay a tale. He testified that on July 3, 2004, the police asset went to his
fine of ₱500,000.00. house four (4) times and convinced him to do an errand for him.
Rosauro refused to buy shabu as he did not know where to buy
one. It was the confidential informant who told him to buy the
In an Amended Information dated 21 February 2005,3 accused-
prohibited drug from a certain "Kael" and to deliver it to the
appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R. A. No.
former’s house.It was also the informant who gave the money to
9165, to wit:
Rosauro to buy the shabu. But Rosauro was not able to meet or
buy directly from Kael because it was a young man who got and
That on the 3rd day of July, 2004at about 5:30 o’clock in the handed to him the shabu on the road. When Rosauro went to the
afternoon, more or less, at Purok 3, Barangay Poblacion, house of the confidential informant as instructed, he was arrested
Municipality of Villanueva, Province of Misamis Oriental, Republic by SPO4 Larot and Dizon. The sachet of shabu was not even
of the Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable recovered from him but from the confidential informant.7
Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to
possess and to sell any dangerous drugs, knowingly, willfully and
Finding the evidence of the prosecution sufficient to establish the
feloniously, did then and there, sell and convey to a third person,
guilt of accused-appellant, the RTC rendered a judgment of
who acted as a decoy in a buy bust operation, one (1) sachet of
conviction, viz.:
shabu, containing 0.04 grams (sic) of shabu, which when
examined gave POSITIVE result to test for the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.4 IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, this Court hereby renders
Judgment finding accused ERIC ROSAURO y BONGCAWIL,
"guilty" beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the
Upon re-arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the
information for selling and delivering a sachet of shabu to the
crime charged.5 Thereafter, pre-trial and trial on the merits
poseur buyer a Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and
ensued.
imposes a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand (PhP 500,000.00) Pesos and to pay the cost.
Based on the records, the prosecution’s version of the facts is as
follows:
The accused ERIC B. ROSAURO who has undergone preventive
imprisonment shall be credited in the service of his sentence
On October 13, 2002, on the basis of unconfirmed reports that consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which
accused-appellant Eric Rosauro (Rosauro for brevity) was selling he has undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention
and distributing drugs, the Provincial Drug Enforcement Unit of prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
Misamis Oriental conducted a test-buy operation in the disciplinary rule imposed upon convicted prisoners, except those
Municipality of Villanueva, Misamis Oriental using a confidential disqualified by law.
agent. The confidential agent bought shabu from Rosauro at
Purok 2, Barangay Katipunan, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. The
The sachet of shabu, Exh. "A" is confiscated and forfeited in favor
substance bought from Rosauro was examined by the PNP crime
of the government to be destroyed in accordance with law.8
laboratory and yielded a positive result for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (commonly known as shabu).
Accused-appellant appealed before the CA, assigning a lone
error:
On July 3, 2004, the police authorities received information that
again drugs were being distributed at Purok 3, Barangay
Poblacion, Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. Thus, at 5:30 o’clock in I
the afternoon, the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation
Task Unit (PAID-SOTU) elements led by SPO4 Lorenzo Larot and
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
PO3 Juancho Dizon positioned themselves in the house of their
ACCUSED-APPELLANT WHEN HIS GUILT WAS NOT PROVEN
confidential agent.
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.9
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 203984 June 18, 2014 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
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
from the accused a black bag containing marijuana, on his part,
vs.
he confiscated from accused’s companion a .38 revolver.
MEDARIO CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, Accused-Appellant.
The facts, as synthesized by the RTC and adopted by the Court of Exh. "E" – Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated November
Appeals, are as follows: 12, 2003 of PO3 Eduardo Ramirez and PO1 Nelson Mariano
On November 13, 2003[,] at around 5:30 x x x in the afternoon, Exh. "F" – Sinumpaang Salaysay of Crisendo Amansec
while PO1 NELSON MARIANO and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ were (Erroneously marked as Exh. "E")
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 EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE
and traversing along EDSA, Balintawak, Quezon City, he had a
traffic dispute (gitgitan) with a white taxi cab prompting him to The accused offered a different version of the story. According to
follow said vehicle until they reached along 8th Avenue Street his testimony, this instant case originated from a traffic mishap
corner C-3 Road, Caloocan City. Thereat, the passengers of said where the taxi he and his companion Rommel Reyes were riding
taxi cab, one of them was accused Calantiao, alighted and fired almost collided with another car. Reyes then opened the window
their guns. Surprised, Lojera could not do anything but continued and made a "fuck you" sign against the persons on board of that
his driving until he reached a police station nearby where he car. That prompted the latter to chase them and when they were
reported the incident. 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
The police officers on duty then were PO1 NELSON MARIANO
and PO3 EDUARDO RAMIREZ. PO1 Mariano testified that they uttered, "Putang ina mo bakit mo ako pinakyu hindi mo ba ako
immediately responded to said complaint by proceeding to 5th kilala?" Said police officer poked his gun again[st] Reyes and
when Calantiao tried to grab it, the gun fired. Calantiao and Reyes
Avenue corner 8th Street, Caloocan City where they found the
white taxi. While approaching said vehicle, two armed men were then handcuffed and were brought to the police station.
alighted therefrom, fired their guns towards them (police officers) Thereat, they were subjected to body frisking and their wallets
and money were taken. PO1 Mariano then prepared some
and ran away. PO1 Mariano and PO3 Ramirez chased them but
they were subdued. PO1 Mariano recovered from Calantiao a documents and informed them that they will be charged for
black bag containing two (2) bricks of dried marijuana fruiting drugs. A newspaper containing marijuana was shown to them and
said police officer told them that it would be sufficient evidence
tops and a magazine of super 38 stainless with ammos, while PO3
Ramirez recovered from Calantiao’s companion [a] .38 revolver. against them. They were detained and subjected to medical
examination before they were submitted for inquest at the
prosecutor’s office.4
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 Ruling of the RTC
bricks of marijuana contained in a black bag with his initials,
"NM". Thereafter, said specimen were forwarded to the PNP On July 23, 2009, the RTC rendered its Decision giving credence
Crime Laboratory for chemical analysis. The result of the to the prosecution’s case. The dispositive portion of the Decision
examination conducted by P/SINSP. JESSSE DELA ROSA reads:
revealed that the same was positive for marijuana, a dangerous
drug.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring accused MEDARIO CALANTIAO y DIMALANTA, GUILTY
The foregoing testimony of PO1 MARIANO was corroborated by BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense of Violation of
PO3 RAMIREZ who testified that he personally saw those bricks Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165, for illegally possessing997.9
grams of marijuana fruiting tops. Henceforth, this Court hereby the grounds of either it was discovered via an illegal search, or
sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a because its custodial chain was broken.
fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).5
Ruling of this Court
In convicting Calantiao, the RTC held that the illegal drug seized
was admissible in evidence as it was discovered during a body
This Court finds no merit in Calantiao’s arguments.
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 Search and Seizure of
established by the prosecution.6 Marijuana valid
Aggrieved, Calantiao appealed7 his conviction to the Court of This Court cannot subscribe to Calantiao’s contention that the
Appeals, assigning the following errors: 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
I
Second, Calantiao did not waive the inadmissibility of the seized In Valeroso, however, the Court held that the evidence searched
items.
and seized from him could not be used against him because they
were discovered in a room, different from where he was being
xxxx 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
Finally, the seized items’ custodial chain is broken.11
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not
Calantiao claims that even if the search and seizure were validly
expressly specify is the matter of "marking" of the seized items in
effected, the marijuana is still inadmissible as evidence against
warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon
him for failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the
apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and
rules on chain of custody, as the item was marked at the police
photography when these activities are undertaken at the police
station.18
station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the
"chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized
The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 9165 provide as items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the
follows: chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence – should be
done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2)
immediately upon confiscation.
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized,
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential The prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory seized marijuana from the time the police officers confiscated it,
Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all to the time it was turned over to the investigating officer, up to the
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled time it was brought to the forensic chemist for laboratory
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as examination.21 This Court has no reason to overrule the RTC and
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so the Court of Appeals, which both found the chain of custody of
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the seized drugs to have not been broken so as to render the
the following manner: marijuana seized from Calantiao inadmissible in evidence.
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of Furthermore, unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, will, or tampering of the evidence, the presumption that the
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of integrity of the evidence has been preserved will remain. The
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were burden of showing the foregoing to overcome the presumption
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a that the police officers handled the seized drugs with regularity,
representative from the media and the Department of Justice and that they properly discharged their duties is on Calantiao.
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to Unfortunately, Calantiao failed to discharge such burden.22
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
It is worthy to note that these arguments were only raised by
Its Implementing Rules and Regulations state: 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,
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized his defense tactic was one of denial and frame-up. However,
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of those defenses have always been frowned upon by the Court, to
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
wit:
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of
all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, The defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so 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
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 199689 March 12, 2014 positioned himself beside a street light while the rest of the team
hid behind a nearby concrete fence. After waiting for about 45
minutes, Constantino arrived on board a tricycle. PO3 Domingo
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
recognized Constantino as the Jojit described by the CI. PO3
vs.
Domingo approached Constantino and asked him if he was Jojit.
HERMANOS CONSTANTINO, JR. y BINAYUG, a.k.a.
When Constantino replied in the affirmative, PO3 Domingo next
"JOJIT," Accused-Appellant.
asked, "Mayroon ka bang stuff?" ("Do you have stuff?") In
response, Constantino inquired of PO3 Domingo how much he
DECISION wanted to buy. PO3 Domingo said he wanted to buy ₱1,000.00
worth of shabu, simultaneously handing over the buy-bust money
to Constantino, who, in turn, handed two plastic sachets to PO3
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.: Domingo. Thereupon, PO3 Domingo turned his cap backwards,
the pre-arranged signal for the consummated sale. Upon seeing
This appeal challenges the Decision1 dated July 29, 2011 of the the signal, the other members of the buy-bust team approached
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03353, affirming the the scene at once and arrested Constantino, from whom SPO2
Decision2 dated April 15, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (R TC), Taguiam recovered the buy-bust money.6
Branch 5 of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, in Criminal Case No.
10516, which found accused-appellant Hermanos Constantino, Jr. Thereafter, Constantino was brought to the police station where
y Binayug, a.k.a. "Jojit" (Constantino), guilty of the crime of illegal the recovered drugs and money were turned over to the
sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, more popularly known
investigator, SPO2 Tamang.7 The recovered drugs were then
as shabu, under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, marked with the initials "A-1" and "A-2." The incident was
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of recorded in the police blotter with an inventory of the recovered
2002.
drugs and money.8
The Information3 filed before the R TC charged Constantino, as Later that evening, at around ten o’clock, P/Supt. Rodriguez and
follows:
SPO2 Tamang submitted to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory Services, Camp Marcelo Adduru, Tuguegarao
That on January 20, 2005, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of City, a request for laboratory examination of two plastic sachets
Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the with white crystalline substance marked as "A-1" and "A-2" to
above-named accused, without authority of law and without determine the presence of dangerous drugs;9 as well as both
permit to sell, transport, deliver and distribute dangerous drugs, hands of Constantino, one piece ₱500.00 bill, and five pieces
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, ₱100.00 bills, to determine the presence of the ultra violet
transport, distribute and deliver two (2) heat-sealed transparent powder.10 Per Chemistry Report No. D-08-200511 and Physical
plastic sachets containing 0.14 gram of Methamphetamine Identification Report No. PI-04-2005,12 prepared by Police Senior
Hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu", a dangerous drug to Inspector (P/SInsp.) Mayra Matote Madria,13 Forensic Chemist, the
a member of the PNP, Tuguegarao City who acted as a poseur- contents of the two plastic sachets tested positive for
buyer; that after receiving the two (2) plastic sachets, the poseur- Methamphetamine Hydrochloride; while the other specimens
buyer simultaneously handed to the accused the marked money tested positive for the presence of bright-yellow ultraviolet
consisting of one (1) piece of FIVE HUNDRED PESO BILL fluorescent powder.
(₱500.00) with Serial No. Q₱278070 and five (5) pieces of ONE
HUNDRED PESO BILL with Serial Nos. SM989053, PS724429, Constantino denied the accusation against him and asserted that
XM484584, BB048002, and EK6900025 or a total of ₱1,000.00 and he was merely framed-up.
this led to the apprehension of the accused and the confiscation
of the dangerous drug together with the buy-bust money by the
said apprehending law enforcers of the Tuguegarao City Police According to Constantino, at around 8:00 in the evening on
Station who formed the buy bust team in coordination with the January 20, 2005, he was enjoying a joyride with his friend, Jeff
PDEA. Abarriao, on the latter’s motorcycle, within the vicinity of Caritan
Centro. After 30 minutes, Constantino decided to go home. While
walking along Reyno or Reynovilla St., two vehicles suddenly
When arraigned on July 8, 2005, Constantino pleaded not guilty to
stopped, one in front and the other behind him. Five men, all in
the crime charged.4 Thereafter, pre-trial and trial on the merits civilian clothes, alighted from the two vehicles. Two of the men
ensued. held Constantino’s hands, while another poked a gun at him,
asking him where he came from and ordering him to bring out the
Evidence for the prosecution presented the following version of shabu. Constantino answered that he did not know what the men
events: were talking about. The men then forced Constantino into one of
the vehicles. Inside the vehicle, one of the men frisked and
searched Constantino, and told him that he was being arrested
On January 20, 2005, at around 2:00 in the afternoon, Police for selling shabu. The men, who were now apparently police
Superintendent (P/Supt.) Mariano Rodriguez (Rodriquez), the officers, brought Constantino to the Tuguegarao City Police
Chief of Police of Tuguegarao City, received a report from a Station. At the police station, the police officers took
confidential informant (CI) that a certain Jojit was selling illegal Constantino’s cellphone and wallet. Also at the police station, one
drugs in the said city. P/Supt. of the arresting police officers brought out two pieces of plastic
sachets and money and turned it over to one of his companions.
Rodriguez immediately formed a buy-bust group composed of At around 9:30 in the evening, the police officers brought
Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Noel Taguiam (Taguiam), SPO2 Constantino to the PNP Crime Laboratory, but nothing happened
Alexander Tamang (Tamang), SPO1 Arthur Blaquera (Blaquera), because he heard that the person who was supposed to conduct
Police Officer (PO) 3 Edwin Hernandez (Hernandez), and PO3 the examination was not around, so, Constantino was brought
Rolando Domingo (Domingo). PO3 Domingo was designated as back to the police station.14
the poseur-buyer. The buy-bust money, consisting of one ₱500.00
bill and five ₱100.00 bills, were dusted with fluorescent powder The following day, January 21, 2005, the police officers again
and their respective serial numbers were recorded in the police brought Constantino to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Along the way,
blotter.5 one of the police escorts forced Constantino to hold a certain
amount of money. Constantino tried to resist but he could not
Around 8:00 in the evening of the same day, the team proceeded really do anything because he was handcuffed. After his
to Reynovilla St., Caritan Centro, Tuguegarao City, the place examination, Constantino was detained and was told that he was
where, according to the CI, Jojit was selling shabu. PO3 Domingo suspected of selling shabu.
The RTC promulgated its Decision on April 15, 2008, finding 1 He went on a joy-ride that night with his friend aboard
Constantino guilty as charged. The trial court rejected the a motorcycle;
arguments of the defense, thus:
2 Tiring, he alighted and started to walk along Reyno
1. The Prosecution failed to give a detailed account of the Villa Street;
arrangement with the accused for the purchase of the shabu.
3 He was accosted by police officers who, at the time, he
The Court’s response: The testimony of PO3 Domingo was did not know to be police officers;
detailed enough, corroborated by other witnesses. It is the
defense that has failed to show in what crucial detail the
4 They took him to the police station and produced the
prosecution’s account is wanting.
sachets;
In his Supplemental Brief, Constantino contests his conviction, (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
averring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
witnesses, particularly, on the circumstances of the marking of confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the two plastic sachets containing shabu allegedly confiscated the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
from him. Different people claim to have made the marking "NBT" items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
on the two plastic sachets and gave various explanations as to counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of
what the initials "NBT" stand for. In short, Constantino argues Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
that the prosecution failed to establish a crucial link in the chain required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
of custody of the shabu in this case. 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 appeal is impressed with merit.
the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case
of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance
Admittedly, denial is an inherently weak defense, consistently with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
viewed with disfavor by the courts, being a self-serving negative integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
evidence. In view, however, of the constitutional presumption that preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
an accused is innocent until the contrary is proven beyond and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]
reasonable doubt, the burden lies on the prosecution to
overcome such presumption by presenting the required quantum While police officers are enjoined to strictly comply with the
of evidence. In so doing, the prosecution must rest on its own procedure prescribed by law, the IRR also explicitly excuses non-
merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense.18 compliance under justifiable grounds, but only if the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly
In a prosecution for the sale of a dangerous drug, the following preserved by the apprehending officers. The integrity and
elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the evidentiary value of seized items are properly preserved for as
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of long as the chain of custody of the same are duly established.
the thing sold and the payment therefor. Simply put, "[in]
prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, series
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the of 2002,21 defines "chain of custody" as follows:
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence."19 And in
the prosecution of these offenses, the primary consideration is to
ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized
other related articles have been preserved from the time they movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals
were confiscated from the accused until their presentation as or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
evidence in court.20 each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized
Article II, Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 lays down the item shall include the identity and signature of the person who
procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of dangerous held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
drugs:
when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, disposition.
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of
Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential In Mallillin v. People,22 the Court discussed how the chain of
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory custody of seized items is established:
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 As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what
the following manner: 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
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
representative from the media and the Department of Justice
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of
(DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] possession of the same. (Citations omitted.)
Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Thus, the following links must be established in the chain of
Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165 describes in more custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if
detail how the foregoing procedure is to be applied:
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officer; second, the turn over of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; A Yes, sir.
third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug
to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
Q If these two plastic sachets will be shown to you again today
turn over and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from
will you be able to tell that these two plastic sachets were the
the forensic chemist to the court.23
same plastic sachets that were handed by the accused to PO3
Rolando Domingo?
After a careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses, the Court finds glaring inconsistencies affecting the
A Yes, sir.
integrity of the shabu purportedly confiscated from Constantino.
The inconsistent testimonies of PO3 Domingo, PO3 Hernandez,
and P/SInsp. Tulauan as to who, when, and where the two plastic Q I am showing to you these two plastic sachets kindly tell us if
sachets of shabu were marked lead the Court to question whether these are the plastic sachets that were handed to PO3 Rolando
the two plastic sachets of shabu identified in court were the very Domingo?
same ones confiscated from Constantino. The doubtful markings
already broke the chain of custody of the seized shabu at a very
early stage. A These are the ones, sir.
To recall, the first crucial link in the chain of custody is seizure Q Why do you say that these are the two plastic sachets handed
and marking of the illegal drug. In this case, PO3 Domingo, as by the accused?
poseur-buyer, received two plastic sachets of shabu from
Constantino in exchange for ₱1,000. However, PO3 Domingo A Because I was there and I saw the accused handed the two
himself did not put any markings on the two plastic sachets of plastic sachets to PO3 Rolando Domingo, sir.
shabu. Instead, upon arrival of the buy-bust team with
Constantino at the police station, PO3 Domingo turned over the
two plastic sachets of shabu to the investigator, SPO2 Tamang, Q Why do you know that these are the same plastic sachets?
who was also a member of the buy-bust team. PO3 Domingo
testified that it was SPO2 Tamang who put the marking "NBT" on A These are the ones, sir.
the said sachets of shabu. Below are the excerpts from PO3
Domingo’s testimony:
Q Mr. Witness, there are markings on these two plastic sachets,
do you know whose markings are these?
Q If that plastic sachets which was sold to you by Hermanos
Constantino is shown to you will you be able to identify the
same? xxxx
Q How were you able to identify the plastic sachets? The witness is pointing to the marking NBT partly hidden.
A A-1 initial NBT and A-2 initial NBT. A A member of the buy bust team also, sir.
A The Investigator, ma’am. Q You stated this NBT was placed by one Noel B. Taguiam, why
do you know that he was the one who placed this?
A In the police station after the apprehension, ma’am.24 (Emphasis A After we conducted the buy bust operation, sir.
supplied.)
Q How soon Noel B. Taguiam placed those initials after the
However, PO3 Hernandez, another member of the buy-bust team, conduct of the buy bust operation?
categorically pointed to SPO2 Taguiam, also a member of the
buy-bust team, as the one who put the marking "NBT" on the
plastic sachets upon the team’s return to the police station, thus: A After a few hours, sir.
Q During the buy bust operation you stated that the accused A In our office, sir.25 (Emphasis supplied.)
handed to the poseur buyer in the person of PO3 Rolando
Domingo two plastic sachets containing as you claimed To complicate things even further, P/SInsp Tulauan,26 the
methamphetamine hydrochloride, have you seen these plastic Forensic Chemist, also declared before the trial court that the
sachets at that time when they handed to PO3 Rolando Domingo? marking "NBT" on the two plastic sachets of shabu were made by
SPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray (Tamaray), the duty officer who received the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of
the specimens at the crime laboratory. P/SInsp. Tulauan testified: the evidence will use as reference point. Moreover, the value of
marking of the evidence is to separate the marked evidence from
the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of
PROS. ISRAEL:
seizure from the accused until disposition at the end of criminal
proceedings, obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of
Q When you received these two specimens Madam Witness, will evidence. A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody
you please tell us the physical appearance of these items when imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that the law
you received the same? requires.1âwphi1 (Citation omitted.)
A They were heat-sealed and with markings "A-1" and "A-2," your Herein, the prosecution is completely silent as to why PO3
Honor. Domingo, the poseur-buyer, despite having immediate custody of
the two plastic sachets of shabu purchased from Constantino,
failed to immediately mark the seized drugs before turning over
B And will you please point to us these markings "A-1" and "A-2" the custody of the same to another police officer. This lapse in
when you received these items Madam Witness? procedure opened the door for confusion and doubt as to the
identity of the drugs actually seized from Constantino during the
A This is the markings "A-1" and "A-2," Ma’am. buy-bust and the ones presented before the trial court, especially
considering that three different people, during the interval,
supposedly received and marked the same. To clarify the matter,
INTERPRETER: the prosecution could have presented as witness either SPO2
Tamang or SPO2 Taguiam to directly validate the marking in
The witness is pointing to the markings "A-1" and "A-2" with the court, but unfortunately, the prosecution chose to dispense with
use of a black pentel pen. the testimonies of both officers. This omission diminished the
importance of the markings as the reference point for the
subsequent handling of the evidence. As a consequence, an
PROS. ISRAEL: objective person could now justifiably suspect the shabu
ultimately presented as evidence in court to be planted or
Q There is another marking in this plastic sachet Madam Witness contaminated.30
marked as NBT, what is this marking all about?
The failure of the prosecution to establish the evidence’s chain of
A That is the marking of SPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray, Ma’am. custody is fatal to its case as the Court can no longer consider or
even safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated dangerous drug were properly preserved.31
Q Is he authorized to make the necessary marking which was
requested to be examined Madam Witness?
In light of the foregoing, Constantino is acquitted of the crime
charged, not because the Court accords credence to his defense
A Yes, Ma’am because he is the one who received the specimen of frame-up, but because the prosecution failed to discharge its
from the one who deliver it, Ma’am. burden of proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Q In this second plastic sachet Madam Witness which you WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July
identified earlier, that there is a marking "A-1," there is another 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03353,
marking NBT, what is this marking all about Madam Witness? affirming the Decision dated April 15, 2008 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 5 of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, in Criminal Case
A That is the marking of SPO3 Nelson B. Tamaray, No. 10516, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Hermanos
Ma’am.27 (Emphases supplied.) Constantino, Jr. y Binayug, a.k.a. "Jojit," is ACQUITTED for failure
of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
and is ORDERED to be immediately released from detention
On cross-examination, P/SInsp. Tulauan confirmed her previous unless he is confined for another lawful cause.
declaration that SPO3 Tamaray had claimed making the marking
on the sachets of shabu:
SO ORDERED.
Atty. Aquino
A Yes, sir.
Q And with respect also to that NBT marked and placed in that
exhibit which you have earlier identified, you did not see this duty
officer placed his markings thereon, is it not?
A Yes sir but I asked him who placed that marking and he said
that he was the one who placed the initial NBT, sir.28
We agree with the lower courts that in the absence of any intent
DECISION
or ill-motive on the part of the police officers to falsely impute
commission of a crime against the accused-appellant, the
PEREZ, J.: presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is
entitled to great respect and deserves to prevail over the bare,
uncorroborated denial and self-serving claim of the accused of
We resolve the appeal, filed by accused-appellant Mercury Dela
frame-up.[6]
Cruz alias "Deday," from the 27 September 2013 Decision [1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01103.
Also, we reject the appellant's contention that the police officers
[2] failed to comply with the provisions of Section 21, paragraph 1 of
In a Decision dated 27 November 2008, the Regional Trial Court R.A. No. 9165,[7] which provides for the procedure in the custody
(RTC), Branch 58, Cebu City, found the accused-appellant guilty and disposition of seized drugs.
of illegal sale of shabu under Sections 5, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165[3] and sentenced him to suffer the penalty life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. After a careful perusal of the records, we agree with the CA that
the prosecution had established the unbroken chain of custody
over the seized drugs. This was established through the
The RTC gave full credence to the testimonies of Senior Police testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, to wit: "At around 7:15
Officer (SPO) 2 Alejandro Batobalanos, Police Officer (PO) 1
o'clock in the evening of November 10, 2006, PO3 Batobalonos,
Angsgar Babyboy A. Reales, and PO1 Leopoldo Bullido who
PO1 Reales, PO1 Bullido and their civilian asset proceeded to
conducted the buy-bust operation against the accused-appellant,
Sitio Cogon, A. Lopez St., Barangay Labangon. When the team
and rejected the self-serving defenses of denial and alibi of
went inside the interior portion of Sitio Cogon, PO1 Reales
accused-appellant and her live-in partner. The RTC noted that the
together with the civilian asset approached the house of Dela
categorical affirmation of accused-appellant and her live-in
Cruz, while PO3 Batobalonos and PO1 Bullido were strategically
partner that the arresting officers did not demand anything from
hidden more or less ten (10) meters away. The civilian asset
them in exchange for the accused-appellant's liberty created the
called Dela Cruz and told her that they will buy shabu worth
presumption that the arresting officers were performing their
P200.00. Thereafter, Dela Cruz handed PO1 Reales a small plastic
official functions regularly.[4]
containing white crystalline substance and in exchange he
handed to the former the P200.00 bills. Upon getting hold of the
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed in toto the money, PO3 Batobalonos and PO1 Bullido, who saw the
RTC's ruling. The CA agreed with the RTC in giving weight to the consummation of the transaction rushed to the scene. When PO3
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and held that the Batobalonos got hold of Dela Cruz, the latter shouted for help and
arresting officers complied with the proper procedure in the resisted arrest. Dela Cruz was able to run and so the team chased
custody and disposition of the seized drugs. her, however, her neighbor Arthur Tabasa Ortega ("Ortega")
blocked their way. The team introduced themselves as policemen
but Ortega did not listen, so PO3 Batobalonos fired a warning
Our Ruling shot as the people likewise started to gather around them.
Meanwhile, Dela Cruz was able to evade arrest. The team then
We dismiss the appeal and affirm the accused-appellant's guilt. arrested Ortega for obstruction of justice.
We find no reason to reverse the RTC's findings, as affirmed by On their way to the police station aboard their patrol car, PO1
the CA. In the same manner as the lower courts, we give full Reales handed to PO3 Batobalonos the small plastic containing
credit to the positive, spontaneous and straightforward white crystalline substance which he purchased from Dela Cruz.
testimonies of the police officers pointing to accused-appellant as Thereafter, upon arrival at the police station, PO3 Batobalonos
the seller and possessor of the confiscated shabu. marked the seized item with "DDM 11/10/06."
We have consistently held that in order to secure a conviction for Afterwards, a Request for Laboratory Examination of the seized
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the item was prepared by PO3 Batobalonos. The Request and the
prosecution is able to establish the following essential elements: seized item were delivered to the Regional Crime Laboratory
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale Office-7, Camp Sotero Cabahug, Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City by
and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its PO1 Reales at around 1:10 o'clock in the morning of November
payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale 11, 2006.
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to Thereafter Forensic Chemist PCI Salinas issued Chemistry Report
the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked No. D-1771-2006,"[8] with the finding that the specimen gave
money successfully consummate the buy-bust positive result for the presence of Methamphetamine
transaction.[5] Here, all the aforesaid elements necessary for hydrochloride.[9]
accused-appellant's prosecution have been sufficiently complied
with, indubitably establishing that she has indeed committed the
crime. PO1 Reales testified in detail how he was introduced by the The confiscated dangerous drug which also constitutes
confidential informant to accused-appellant. The confidential the corpus delicti of the crime was validly considered by the
informant, thereafter, manifested to the accused-appellant their courts in arriving at the decision despite the fact that the forensic
intention to buy worth P200.00. Upon giving the accused- chemist who examined it did not testify in court. The relevant
appellant the 2 marked P100.00 bills, she, in return, handed to portion of the RTC decision reads:
PO1 Reales a small plastic containing white crystalline
substance. The plastic sachet later on tested positive for the The presentation of the testimony of Forensic chemist PSI
presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. The testimony MUTCHIT G. SALINAS was dispensed with, the defense
given by PO1 Reales was corroborated by SPO1 Batobalonos and
having ADMITTED: the existence of the Letter Request dated
PO1 Bullido in all material details. It is therefore clear beyond any November 10, 2006 from the PNP Station 10; the existence of one
shadow of doubt that the buy-bust operation had been (1) small plastic pack containing white crystalline substance
substantially completed and consummated. The fact that
which is the subject for examination, however DENIED as to the
accused-appellant was able to evade the arrest immediately after ownership of said evidence; the existence and due execution of
the Chemistry Report No. D-1771-2006 executed by witness The integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved
Mutchit G. Salinas; that the intended witness is and expert unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the
witness who examined the specimen found to contain the evidence has been tampered with. Accused-appellant bears the
presence of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride locally known as burden of showing that the evidence was tampered or meddled
shabu, a dangerous drug.[10] with in order to overcome the presumption of regularity in the
handling of exhibits by public officers and the presumption that
public officers properly discharged their duties.[17] Accused-
Anent accused-appellant's contention that the drugs were marked
appellant in this case failed to present any plausible reason to
not at the place where she was apprehended but at the police
impute ill motive on the part of the arresting officers. Thus, the
station and that there was no physical inventory made on the
testimonies of the apprehending officers deserve full faith and
seized item nor was it photographed, we find the same untenable.
credit.[18] In fact, accused-appellant did not even question the
The alleged non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was
credibility of the prosecution witnesses. She simply anchored her
not fatal to the prosecution's case because the apprehending
defense on denial and alibi.
team properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized drugs.[11]
We affirm the penalties imposed as they are well within the
ranges provided by law. Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
Relevant to the instant case is the procedure to be followed in the
prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment to death[19] and a fine
custody and handling of the seized dangerous drugs as outlined
ranging from P500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 for the sale of any
in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and
dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity or purity involved.
Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which states: