PEOPLE V ANDAYA - buy – bust operation
FACTS:
On February 7, 2003, an information for violation of
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 1 (RA 9165) was filed
charging Pablito Andaya y Reano (Andaya). The Information
reads on or about December 16, 2002 at around 9:50 o'clock
in the evening at Brgy. San Jose Sico, Batangas City, not being
authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, sell, dispense or deliver, more or less 0.09
gram(s) of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a
dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of RA 9165.
Upon arraignment, 3 Andaya pleaded not guilty to
the charge. Thereafter, trial on
the merits ensued.
Five (5) witnesses were presented by the
prosecution, namely: SPO4 Delfin Alea, SPO3 Nelio Lopez,
SPO2 Danilo Mercado, SPO4 Protasio Marasigan and Jupri
Delantar. SPO2 Delfin Alea testified that at about 8:00 o'clock
in the evening of December 16, 2002, their asset who was
conducting surveillance of Pablito Andaya in Barangay San
Jose Sico, Batangas City, arrived at their station. Said asset
reported that he had arranged to buy shabu from Pablito. A
team composed of SPO1 Aguila, SPO1 Cabungcal, Eric de
Chavez, PO1 Lindberg Yap, Edwalberto Villar and asset Bagsit
was constituted to conduct a buy-bust. Two (2) pieces of
P100.00 bills both duly marked "X" were recorded in the
police blotter. Alea gave the marked bills to the asset. Upon
reaching the designated place, the team members alighted
from their vehicles and occupied different positions where
they could see and observe the asset. The asset knocked on
the door of Pablito's house. Pablito came out. Pablito and the
asset talked briefly. The asset gave Pablito the marked
money. The asset received something from appellant. The
pre-arranged signal signifying consummation of the
transaction was given. The team members approached
Pablito and theasset, introduced themselves as police officers
and arrested accused. He was brought to the police station.
The arrival of the team was recorded in the police blotter.
The merchandise handed by accused to the asset was sent to
the Regional Crime Laboratory in Camp Vicente Lim,
Canlubang, Laguna. The specimen was positive for
methampethamine Hydrochloride
(shabu), a dangerous drug.
RTC: accused guilty as charged
- violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
(illegal sale of DDs)
* Appeal – search & seizure was illegal
- grave abuse of discretion - court for prosecution
failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
CA: appeal dismissed
ISSUE:
1. WON search & seizure was a violation of the
constitutional right of accused against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
2. WON prosecution’s non-presentation of the confidential
informant was adverse to the prosecution = failure to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
HELD:
To secure the conviction of the accused who is charged with
the illegal sale of dangerous drugs as defined and punished by
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Drugs Act of 2002), the State must establish the concurrence
of the following elements, namely:
(a) that the transaction or sale took place between the
accused and the poseur buyer; and
(b) that the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale
is presented in court as
evidence of the corpus delicti.
A buy-bust operation is a valid and legitimate form
of entrapment of the drug pusher.
In such operation, the poseur buyer transacts
with the suspect by purchasing a quantity of the dangerous
drug and paying the price agreed upon, and in turn the drug
pusher turns over or delivers the dangerous drug subject of
their agreement in exchange for the price or other
consideration. Once the transaction is consummated, the
drug pusher is arrested, and can be held to account under the
criminal law. The justification that underlies the legitimacy of
the buy-bust operation is that the suspect is arrested in
flagranti delicto, that is, the suspect has just committed, or is
in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit the
offense in the presence of the arresting police officer or
private person. 12 The arresting police officer or private
person is favored in such instance with the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty.
Here, the confidential informant was not a police
officer. He was designated to be the poseur buyer himself. It
is notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested
Andaya on the basis of the pre-arranged signal from the
poseur buyer. The pre-arranged signal signified to the
members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had been
consummated between the poseur buyer and Andaya.
However, the State did not present the confidential
informant/poseur buyer during the trial to describe how
exactly the transaction between him and Andaya had taken
place. There would have been no issue against that, except
that none of the members of the buy-bust team had directly
witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the
poseur buyer due to their being positioned at a distance from
the poseur buyer and Andaya at the moment of the supposed
transaction.
The CA did not find anything wrong or odd in the non-
presentation of the poseur buyer as a witness against the
accused. – SC: CA IS WRONG

In this case, however, it was different, because the
poseur buyer and the confidential informant were one and
the same. Without the poseur buyer's testimony, the State
did not credibly incriminate Andaya.
No buyer, pre arranged signal was not shown on
record = no buyer = no sale to prove
SC: WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the
decision promulgated on February 11, 2008; ACQUITS
accused Pablito Andaya y Reano for failure to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his immediate release
from confinement at the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa
City. The Court DIRECTS that the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections to implement
the immediate release of Pablito Andaya y Reano, unless he is
confined for any other lawful cause; and to report his
compliance within ten days from receipt. SO ORDERED.
NOTES:
1. selling - any act "of giving away any dangerous drug and/or
controlled
precursor and essential chemical whether for money or any
other consideration;
2. delivering - any act "of knowingly passing a dangerous drug
to
another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or
without
consideration."
PEOPLE V ENUMERABLE – chain of custody: sale
FACTS:
A deal in shabu between the asset of PO3
Edwalberto Villas and a certain Gerry of San Pablo City, a buy-
bust operation was onducted by the elements of the
Batangas City Police Station with the assistance of Police
Inspector Danilo Balmes of the CIDG Batangas Province on
May 27, 2004 at 11:30 o'clock in the morning at the Petron
Gasoline Station along B. Morada Ave., Lipa City.
Using two (2) pieces of marked P500.00 bills and
boodle money to make the appearance of about P24,000.00,
the police asset who posed as a
buyer transacted with the alias Gerry upon his arrival at the
gas station. After the exchange of the marked money and the
three (3) plastic sachets of shabu placed in a black plastic box,
alias Gerry was placed under arrest. He was later identified as
Gerardo Enumerable y de Villa. The marked money was
recovered from his possession by PO3 Villas who also took
custody of the specimen shabu which he marked EMV 1 to
EMV 3. The three (3) sachets of shabu were turned over to
the Batangas
Provincial Crime Laboratory, pursuant to the request for
laboratory examination of P/Supt. Fausto Manzanilla, Jr.,
Chief of Police, Batangas City PNP on May 27, 2004 at 5:25
p.m. However, that Crime laboratory indorsed the request
with the specimens on June 4, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to the
Regional Crime Laboratory in Calamba City.
Police Inspector and Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P.
Huelgas found the specimens positive for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as
shown by Chemistry Report No. D-566-04, the authenticity
and genuineness of which were admitted by accused during
the pre-trial.
Appellant: Motion for Leave to File Demurrer – denined by
the RTC for failure of appellant to adduce any reason
therefore.
RTC: accused was found guilty
CA: affirmed the conviction of appellant
The Court of Appeals further ruled that the failure of
the arresting officers to conduct a physical inventory and to
take photographs of the seized items is not fatal as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved, as in this case.
According to the Court of Appeals, the prosecution
was able to prove the unbroken chain of custody of the
prohibited drug from the time PO3 Villas confiscated the
plastic sachets from appellant and marked them at the place
of arrest, to the time PO3 Villas brought the plastic sachets to
the police station and turned them over to the investigator
on-duty until the time SPO1 de Castro
submitted the marked plastic sachets to the Regional Crime
Laboratory Office Calabarzon for laboratory examination.
ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution established the identity and
integrity of the confiscated illegal drug, which is the corpus
delicti of the offense charged against appellant.
HELD:
It is settled that in prosecutions for illegal sale of
dangerous drug, not only must the essential elements of the
offense be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but likewise the
identity of the prohibited drug. The dangerous drug itself
constitutes t h e corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of
its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.
Necessarily, the prosecution must establish that the
substance seized from the accused is the same substance
offered in court as exhibit.
In this regard, the prosecution must sufficiently
prove the unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated illegal
drug. In People v. Watamama, 11 the Court held:
In all prosecutions for the violation of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the existence of the prohibited
drug has to be proved. The chain of custody rule requires that
testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered in
evidence. To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the
substance presented in court is the same substance seized
from the accused.
In People v. Climaco, 12 citing Malillin v. People, the Court
held:
With this, an element in the criminal cases for illegal
sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus
delicti, is not proven, and the accused must then be acquitted
based on reasonable doubt. For this reason, [the accused]
must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt due to
the broken chain of custody over the dangerous drug
allegedly recovered from him.
In this case, there was a glaring gap in the custody of
the illegal drug since the prosecution failed to sufficiently
establish who had custody of the illegal drug from the
moment it was allegedly transmitted to the Batangas
Provincial Crime Laboratory on 27 May 2004 until it was
allegedly delivered to the Regional Crime Laboratory on 4
June 2004. There was no evidence presented how the
confiscated sachets of shabu were stored, preserved or
labeled nor who had custody prior to their delivery to the
Regional Crime Laboratory and their subsequent presentation
before the trial court. This is evident from the testimony of
PO3 Villas, who stated he had no knowledge on who had
custody of the sachets of shabu from 27 May 2004 until 4
June 2004.
* Based on testimony of PO3 Villas: he has no knowledge
that specimen (shabu) was submitted 7 days after
apprehension
Since the failure of the prosecution to establish every
link in the chain of custody of the illegal drug gravely
compromised its identity and integrity, which illegal drug is
the corpus delicti of the offense charged against appellant, his
acquittal is therefore in order.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the appeal and ACQUIT
appellant Gerardo Enumerable y De Villa based on reasonable
doubt and we ORDER his immediate release from detention,
unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
DELA CRUZ v PEOPLE – entrapment operation PO2
FACTS:
Petitioner Jaime D. dela Cruz was charged with
violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.)
9165, by the Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer of
the Office of the Ombudsman:
Info: That on or about the 31st day of January 2006,
at Cebu City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, JAIME D. DE LA
CRUZ, a public officer, having been duly appointed and
qualified to such public position as Police Officer 2 of the
Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned in the Security
Service Group of the Cebu City Police Office, after having
been arrested by agents of the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in an entrapment
operation, was found positive for use of METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE commonly known as "Shabu", the
dangerous drug after a confirmatory test conducted on said
accused.
When arraigned, petitioner, assisted by counsel de
parte, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The records do not
reveal whether De la Cruz was likewise charged for extortion.
VERSION OF PROSECUTION:
NBI received a Complaint from CORAZON ABSIN AND
CHARITO ESCOBIDO. The complainants claimed that
CORAZON AND ARIEL (SON OF CHARITO, live in partner of
Corazon) were picked up by several unknown male persons
believed to be police officers for allegedly selling drugs.
An errand boy gave a number to the complainants,
and when the latter gave the number a ring, they were
instructed to proceed to the Gorordo Police Office located
along Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City. In the said police office,
they met "James" who demanded from them PhP100,000,
later lowered to PhP40,000, in exchange for the release of
Ariel. After the meeting, the complainants proceeded to the
NBICEVRO to file a complaint and narrate the circumstances
of the meeting to the authorities. While at the NBI-CEVRO,
Charito even received calls supposedly from "James"
instructing her to bring the money as soon as possible.
*Special investigators at NBI – CEVRO verified the text
messages received by the complainants.
* A team was formed to implement an ENTRAPMENT
OPERATION – Jollibee in Cebu
The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz by
using a pre-marked PhP500 bill dusted with fluorescent
powder, which was made part of the amount demanded by
"James" and handed by Corazon. Petitioner was later brought
to the forensic laboratory of the NBICEVRO where forensic
examination was done by forensic chemist Rommel
Paglinawan. Petitioner was required to submit his urine for
drug testing. It later yielded a positive result for presence of
dangerous drugs as indicated in the confirmatory test result
labeled as Toxicology (Dangerous Drugs) Report No. 2006-
TDD-2402 dated 16 February 2006.
VERSION OF DEFENSE:
The defense presented petitioner as the lone witness. He
denied the charges and testified that while eating at the said
Jollibee branch, he was arrested allegedly for extortion by NBI
agents. When he was at the NBI Office, he was required to
extract urine for drug examination, but he refused saying he
wanted it to be done by the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory and not by the NBI. His request was,
however, denied. He also requested to be allowed to call his
lawyer prior to the taking of his urine sample, to no avail.
RTC:
*Accused – guilty of violating Section 15, Article II of R.A.
9165
*Appeal: Petitioner: there was error on the RTC’s validation
of the result of the urine test despite its dubiousness having
been admitted in spite of lack of legal basis for its admission.
– 1. he was not assisted by a counsel 2. He was allegedly held
guilty beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding the lack of
sufficient basis to convict him.
CA: affirmed RTC, appeal devoid of merit
Petitioner filed for MR: arguing that CA overlooked a
prevailing jurisprudence, which states that drug testing
conducted under the circumstances similar to this would
violate a person’s right to privacy. The appellate court
nevertheless denied the motion.
PETREV ON CERTIORARI: He assigns as errors the use of
hearsay evidence as basis for his conviction and the
questionable circumstances surrounding his arrest and drug
test.
Respondent, through the OSG, filed its Comment,
saying that "petitioner's arguments cannot be the subject of a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, as they
involve questions of facts which may not be the subject
thereof; after his arraignment, he can no longer contest the
validity of his arrest, less so at this stage of the proceedings;
his guilt has been adequately established by direct evidence;
and the manner in which the laboratory examination was
conducted was grounded on a valid and existing law.
ISSUE: whether or not the drug test conducted upon the
petitioner is legal
HELD:
Ruling of RTC AND CA IS ERRONEOUS on 3 counts
1. The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons
apprehended or arrested for any unlawful act, but only
for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. 9165.
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. — A person apprehended
or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any
dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a
penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a
government center for the first offense, subject to the
provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any
dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one
(1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty
thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand
pesos (PhP200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not
be applicable
where the person tested is also found to have in his/her
possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for
under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions
stated therein shall apply.
First, "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot
literally mean any person apprehended or arrested for any
crime. The phrase must be read in context and understood in
consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends persons
arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article
II of the law.
2. The drug test is not covered by allowable non-testimonial
compulsion.
"a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not mean a
waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an
illegal warrantless arrest."
We are aware of the prohibition against testimonial
compulsion and the allowable exceptions to such
proscription. Cases where non-testimonial compulsion has
been allowed reveal, however, that the pieces of evidence
obtained were all material to the principal cause of
the arrest.
In the instant case, we fail to see how a urine sample
could be material to the charge of extortion. The RTC and the
CA, therefore, both erred when they held that the extraction
of petitioner's urine for purposes of drug testing was "merely
a mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a
custodial investigation."
Gutang vs People:
"what the Constitution prohibits is the use of physical or
moral compulsion to extort communication from the accused,
but not an inclusion of his body in evidence, when it may be
material"
3. The drug test was a violation of
petitioner's right to privacy and right
against self-incrimination.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and
for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against
himself.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision
dated 22 June 2011 issued by the Twentieth Division, and the
Resolution dated 2 February 2012 issued by the former
Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. C.R.
No. 00670 are SET ASIDE. Petitioner is hereby ACQUITTED.
SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE VS BADILLA – indiscriminate firing
FACTS:
In an Information, appellant Enrico Briones Badilla
was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No.
9165. The informations reads: that on the 6th day of
September 2010 in Caloocan City, MM BADILLA has in his
possession, custody and control 1 small heat sealed
transparent plastic sheet consting METHYLAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU) weighing 7.75gram, which when
subjected for lab exam gave POSTIVE result to the test.
Arraginmend: accused pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged.
PROSECUTION:
Evidence consists of testimonies of
(1) PO2 Borban Paras, the one who arrested appellant and
seized the illegal drug from him;
2) PO2 Rafael Espadero, the one who received the marked
specimen from PO2 Paras;
(3) PO2 Eduardo Ronquillo, one of PO2 Paras' companions
during the arrest of accused; and
(4) P/Sr. Insp. Margarita.
Summation of testimonies:
On September 6, 2010, around 10:15 p.m., PO2 Paras
received a phone call from a concerned citizen informing him
that someone was indiscriminately 􀀶ring a gun at BMBA
Compound, 4th Avenue, Caloocan City. PO2 Paras and his
companions, PO2 Ronquillo, PO3 Baldomero and PO2 Woo,
responded to the call and reached the target area around
10:25 p.m.
There they saw a male person, later identi􀀶ed as
appellant Enrico Briones Badilla, standing along the alley.
Appellant was suspiciously in the act of pulling or drawing
something from his pocket; thus, as a precautionary measure,
and thinking that a concealed weapon was inside his pocket,
PO2 Paras immediately introduced himself as a police officer,
held appellant's arm, and asked the latter to bring out his
hand from his pocket. It turned out that appellant was
holding a plastic sachet with white crystalline substance. PO2
Paras con􀀶scated the plastic sachet from appellant, informed
him of his constitutional rights, and arrested him. Appellant
and the con􀀶scated plastic sachet were brought to the
Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group (SAID-
SOTG) Of􀀶ce where PO2 Paras marked the plastic sachet
with "BP/EBB 07 Sept 2010."
Thereafter, PO2 Paras turned-over appellant and the
seized item to PO2 Espadero who placed the seized item in a
much bigger plastic sachet which the latter marked with
"SAID-SOTG EVIDENCE 07-Sept 2010." 10 PO2 Espadero then
prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination 11 of the
seized item, dated September 7, 2010, and another request
for drug test on the urine sample taken from appellant. These
requests were both signed by P/Chief Insp. Bartolome
Tarnate. PO2 Espadero transmitted the requests and the
specimen to the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory
Of􀀶ce, where duty desk of􀀶cer PO1 Pataweg received and
recorded the same in his logbook. PO1 Pataweg, in the
presence of PO2 Espadero, turned-over the requests and the
specimen to P/Sr. Insp. Libres for laboratory examination.
The white crystalline substance was found positive
for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
per Physical Science Report No. D-246-10 while the urine
sample taken from appellant was found positive for
methylamphetamine, per Physical Evidence Report No. DT-
250-10.
DEFENSE:
He was just walking when police called him. The
police offcer poked a gun at him which he shoved away and
fell on the ground. He. denied accusation and said that he
only saw the plastic sachet containing shabu in court.
The police officers asked P20,000.00 from him
allegedly because they knew that his father had a junk shop
business, but he refused to give them money. He questioned
the positive result of the drug test because allegedly no
examination was conducted on his person
RTC: accused guilty of violating Sec. 11, RA 9165
CA: affirmed the appellant’s conviction
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in giving full
weight and credence to the prosecution's evidence
notwithstanding its failure to prove the identity and integrity
of the alleged seized shabu.
HELD:
First Issue: Legality of arrest: accused is estopped when he
entered plea.
Second Issue: Compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule
Section 21. Custody and disposition of Con􀀶scated, Seized
and/or Surrendered Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
controlled precursors and Essentials Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. —
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
con􀀶scated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending of􀀶cer/team having initial custody and
control of the drugs shall immediately, after seizure and
con􀀶scation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
items were con􀀶scated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
of􀀶cial who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Further, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 similarly
provides that:
(a) The apprehending of􀀶cer/team having initial custody
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and con􀀶scation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s
from whom such items were con􀀶scated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ),
and any elected public of􀀶cial who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: . . . Provided, further, that non-compliance with
these requirements under justi􀀶able grounds, as long as
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
of􀀶cer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items.
Under the same proviso, however, non-compliance with the
stipulated procedure, under justi􀀶able grounds, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said
items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
of􀀶cers.
the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the con􀀶scated drug had not been
compromised because it established the crucial link in the
chain of custody of the seized item from the time it was 􀀶rst
discovered until it was brought to the court for examination.
In this case, the facts persuasively proved that the sachet of
shabu presented in court was the same item seized from
appellant. The integrity and evidentiary value thereof were
duly preserved.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED and the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 27, 2015 in CA-
G.R. CR-HC No. 06354 is AFFIRMED.
PEOPLE VS MORILLA – transport of DDs
FACTS:
On or about October 13, 2001, in Barangay Kiloloran,
Municipality of Real, Province of Quezon, Morilla, Mayor
Mitra, Willie Yang y Yao (Yang) and Ruel Dequilla y Regodan
(Dequilla) who all belong to an organized/syndicate crime
group as they all help one another, for purposes of gain in the
transport of illegal drugs, and in fact, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually aiding and abetting one
another, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously transport by means of two (2) motor vehicles,
namely a Starex van bearing plate number RWT-888 with
commemorative plate to read "Mayor" and a municipal
ambulance of Panukulan, Quezon Province,
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug which is
commonly known as shabu, and with an approximate weight
of 􀀶ve hundred three point sixty eight (503.68) kilos, without
authority whatsoever.
RTC: convicted accused of illegal transport of meth/shabu
(503.68 kilos)
Police officers have acquired prior knowledge of the
suspected transport of illegal drugs. During the CHECKPOINT
– the information was indeed and accurate.
Mayor Mitra: defense – he has no knowledge of the contents
of the sacks and that he was merely requested to transport
them to Manila on board his Starex van upon a request of a
certain Ben Tan because the latter bought his fishing boat
Defense of ambulance driver Morilla: lack of knowledge of
illegality of the contents of the sack – he thought they were
wooden tiles and electronics spare parts with Dequilla
Yang: other passenger in the van – did not bother to inquire
about the contents of the vehicle because he was merely an
accommodated passenger of the ambulance.
The court rejected the defenses.
Checkpoint – van was not tinted so police inquired
Driver said narra wooden tiles but when opened they were
white crystalline granules
CA: affirmed the ruling of RTC
ISSUE:
(1) whether he may be convicted for
conspiracy to commit the offense charged sans allegation of
conspiracy in the
Information, and
(2) whether the prosecution was able to prove his culpability
as alleged in
the Information
HELD:
Accused were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of
transporting DDSs on board their vehicles.
Transport" - "to carry or convey from one place to another
It was well established duringtrial that Morilla was driving the
ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was
driving a Starex van going to Manila. The very act of
transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is malum
prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special
law.
The fact of transportation of the sacks containing
dangerous drugs need not be accompanied by proof of
criminal intent, motive or knowledge.
WHEREFORE –PETITION DENIED, CONVICTION
AFFIRMED
PEOPLE VS LAYLO anti-drug surveillance
FACTS:
On or about the 17th day of December, 2005, in the
Municipality of Binangonan, Province of Rizal, accused
ROLANDO LAYLO y CEPRES and MELITONA RITWAL, not
being authorized by law to sell any dangerous drug, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly attempt to sell,
deliver, and give away shabu to PO1 Angelito G. Reyes, 0.04
gram of white crystalline substance contained in two (2) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets which were found positive
to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also
known as shabu, a dangerous drug, thus commencing the
commission of the crime of illegal sale but did not perform
all the acts of execution which would produce such crime by
reason of some cause or accident other than the accused's
own spontaneous desistance, that is, said PO1 Angelito G.
Reyes introduced himself as policeman, arrested the accused
and con􀀶scated the two (2) above-mentioned sachets from
the latter.
Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty.
However, during the trial, Ritwal jumped bail and was tried in
absentia. Thus,
Ritwal was deemed to have waived the presentation of her
evidence and the case was submitted for decision without
any evidence on her part.
PROSECUTION version of facts:
In the afternoon of 17
December 2005, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, both wearing
civilian clothes, were conducting anti-drug surveillance
operations at Lozana Street, Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal.
While the police of􀀶cers were in front of a sari-sari store at
around 5:40 p.m., appellant Laylo and his live-in partner,
Ritwal, approached them and asked, "Gusto mong umiskor ng
shabu?" PO1 Reyes replied, "Bakit mayroon ka ba?" Laylo
then brought out two plastic bags containing shabu and told
the police of􀀶cers, "Dos (P200.00) ang isa." Upon hearing this,
the police of􀀶cers introduced themselves as cops. PO1 Reyes
immediately arrested Laylo. Ritwal, on the other, tried to get
away but PO1 Pastor caught up with her. PO1 Pastor then
frisked Ritwal and found another sachet of shabu in a SIM
card case which Ritwal was carrying. PO1 Reyes and PO1
Pastor marked the three plastic sachets of shabu recovered
from Laylo and Ritwal and forwarded them to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory for forensic testing. Forensic
Chemist Police Inspector Yehla C. Manaog
conducted the laboratory examination on the specimens
submitted and found the recovered items positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous
drug.
The police of􀀶cers charged Laylo for attempted sale of illegal
drugs and used the two plastic sachets containing shabu as
basis while Ritwal was charged for possession of illegal drugs
using as basis the third sachet containing 0.02 grams of
shabu.
DEFENSE:
presented different versions of the facts. The
witnesses presented were: appellant Laylo; Laylo's three
neighbors namely Rodrigo Panaon, Jr., Marlon de Leon, and
Teresita Marquez.
Laylo testi􀀶ed that while he and his common-law
wife, Ritwal, were walking on the street, two men grabbed
them. The two men, who they later identi􀀶ed as PO1 Reyes
and PO1 Pastor, dragged them to their house. Once inside,
the police of􀀶cers placed two plastic sachets in each of their
pockets. Afterwards, they were brought to the police station
where, despite protests and claims that the drugs were
planted on them, they were arrested and charged.
To corroborate Laylo's testimony, the defense
presented Laylo's three neighbors. Marlon de Leon (de Leon),
also a close friend of the couple, testi􀀶ed that he was taking
care of the Laylo and Ritwal's child when he heard a
commotion. He saw men, whom de Leon identi􀀶ed as assets,
holding the couple and claimed that he saw one of them put
something, which he described as "plastic," in the left side of
Laylo's jacket.
Rodrigo Panaon, Jr. (Panaon) narrated that on 17
December 2005, at around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., he was on his
way home when he saw Laylo arguing with three men in an
alley. He overheard Laylo uttering, "Bakit ba? Bakit ba?"
Later, Panaon saw a commotion taking place at Laylo's
backyard. The three men arrested Laylo while the latter
shouted, "Mga kapitbahay, tulungan ninyo kami, kami'y
dinadampot." Then Panaon saw someone place something
inside the jacket of Laylo as he heard Laylo say, "Wala kayong
makukuha dito."
Teresita Marquez (Marquez) testi􀀶ed that while she
was fetching water from the well on 17 December 2005, at
around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., she heard Laylo's son shouting,
"Amang, Amang." Marquez then saw the child run to his
father, who was with several
male companions. Then someone pulled Laylo's collar and
frisked him. Marquez overheard someone uttering, "Wala po,
wala po." Marquez went home after the incident.
At around 9:00 in the evening, Ritwal's daughter visited her
and borrowed money for Laylo and Ritwal's release. Marquez
then accompanied Ritwal's daughter to the municipal hall,
where a man demanded P40,000.00 for the couple's release.
In People v. de Guzman, We have ruled that peddlers of illicit
drugs have been known, with ever increasing casualness and
recklessness, to offer and sell their wares for the right price to
anybody, be they strangers or not. What matters is not the
existing familiarity between the buyer and the seller, or the
time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well
as the act constituting the sale and delivery of the prohibited
drugs.
Appeal dismissed
Conviction affirmed

RTC: guilty Laylo and Ritwal – Section 11, RA 9165

The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police

officers,who were presumed to have performed their duties
in a regular manner. The RTC stated that Reyes and Pastor
were straightforrward and candid in theirtestimonies and
unsha3en $y cross8e amination. Their testimonies were
unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in their
material points. The RTC added that the denial of appellant
Laylo’s defense is weak and self-serving and his allegation of
planting of evidence or frameup can be easily concocted.
Thus, Laylo’s defense cannot be given credence o'er the
positive and clear testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses.Laylo filed an appeal with the CA. The CA affirmed
the decision of theRTC

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely erred in
affirming the Decision of RTC in convicting appellant of
attempted sale of dangerous drugs

HELD:
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal
sale of drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment.
Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165 provides:
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. – Any attempt or
conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be
penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission
of the same as provided under this Act:
x x x (b) Sale, trading, administration,
dispensation, delivery, distribution and
transportation of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical; x x x

Appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt

acts the commission of the intended crime by showing the
substance to PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor. The sale was
aborted when the police officers identified themselves and
placed appellant and Ritwal under arrest. The plastic sachets
were presented in court as evidence of corpus delicti. Thus,
the elements of the crime charged were sufficiently
established by evidence.