JURISPRUDENCE SELLING OF DRUGS, REQUIREMENTS:

JURISPRUDENCE SELLING OF DRUGS, REQUIREMENTS People v. Dela

Rosa, January 26, 2011; People v. Baga , November 15, 2010. identities of the
buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor . the transaction or sale be proved to have actually
taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti .
Corpus delicti means the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime
charged

JURISPRUDENCE validity of a buy-bust operation:

JURISPRUDENCE validity of a buy-bust operation "objective" test – the details of
the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and
adequately shown, the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher,
the offer to purchase, and the promise or payment of the consideration until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.

ILLEGAL POSSESSION: ELEMENTS:

ILLEGAL POSSESSION: ELEMENTS THE APPELLANT WAS IN POSSESSION
OF AN ITEM OR AN OBJECT IDENTIFIED TO BE A PROHIBITED OR
REGULATED DRUG SUCH POSSESSION IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
THE APPELLANT WAS FREELY AND CONSCIOUSLY AWARE OF BEING IN
POSSESSION OF THE DRUG

ILLEGAL POSSESSION: ELEMENTS:

ILLEGAL POSSESSION: ELEMENTS MERE POSSESSION OF A REGULATED
DRUG PER SE CONSTITUTES PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF KNOWLEDGE
SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT AN ACCUSED ABOUT A
SATISFACTORYEXPLANATION

PROCEDURE FOR THE CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF DANGEROUS

DRUGS :
PROCEDURE FOR THE CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs
xxx for proper disposition in the following manner : The apprehending team
having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ PHYSICAL INVENTORY:

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ PHYSICAL INVENTORY Adriano v.
People of the Phil, July 13, 2011 ISSUE: Petitioner raises as issue that the two
plastic sachets containing shabu were inadmissible in evidence because the
integrity of the chain of custody was impaired. He states the failure to: conduct a
physical inventory; photograph the plastic sachet in the presence of the accused
or his representative, counsel, representative from the media and the
Department of Justice and any elected public official; and immediately mark the
plastic sachet on site, all cast doubt as to whether the chain of custody remains
intact.

JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY:

JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY Adriano v. People of the Phil, July
13, 2011 HELD: The failure of the policemen to make a physical inventory and to
photograph the two plastic sachets containing shabu do not render the
confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. In People v. Campos , the Court held
that the failure of the policemen to make a physical inventory and to photograph
the confiscated items are not fatal to the prosecution’s cause

JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY:

JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY Adriano v. People of the Phil, July
13, 2011 HELD: The alleged procedural lapses in the conduct of the buy-bust
operation, namely the lack of prior coordination with the PDEA and the failure to
inventory and photograph the confiscated items immediately after the operation ,
are not fatal to the prosecution’s cause .

JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY:

JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY Adriano v. People of the Phil, July
13, 2011 HELD: The absence of an inventory of personal effects seized from
appellant becomes immaterial to the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation for it is
enough that it is established that the operation was indeed conducted and that
the identity of the seller and the drugs subject of the sale are proven .

JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY:

JURISPRUDENCE PHYSICAL INVENTORY People v. Concepcion The
prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory of the
seized drugs and the photography pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165 will not exonerate appellants. Non-compliance with said section is
not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items , as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.

Disposition of Drugs:
Disposition of Drugs Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of
dangerous drugs, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory
for a qualitative and quantitative examination

Disposition of Drugs:
Disposition of Drugs A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results,
which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be
issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s:

Disposition of Drugs:
Disposition of Drugs After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within
seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered dangerous drugs and through the PDEA shall within twenty-
four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or burning of the same

CASE SAMPLE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ DISPOSITION OF DANGEROUS

DRUGS:
CASE SAMPLE OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ DISPOSITION OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS

SEIZURE BY THE APPREHENDING OFFICER:

SEIZURE BY THE APPREHENDING OFFICER every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and
what happened to it while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it
was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the
chain.

TURN-OVER TO THE INVESTIGATOR:

TURN-OVER TO THE INVESTIGATOR

TURN-OVER TO THE CHEMIST:

TURN-OVER TO THE CHEMIST

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY: method of authenticating

evidence:
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY: method of authenticating evidence
People v. Roble , April 11, 2011 - include testimony about every link in the chain
from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness’ possession,
the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered
to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of
the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of
the same.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY: BUY-BUST :

CHAIN OF CUSTODY: BUY-BUST LINKS MUST BE ESTABLISHED The
seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer The turn-over of the illegal drug seized by
the apprehending officer to the investigating officer The turn-over by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination The turn-over and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court (people v. lee, 622 scra 571)

JURISRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY:

JURISRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY Julius Cacao v. People of the Phil,
January 22, 2010 Thus, there is no evidence to prove that what was turned over
to the evidence custodian and later presented in court was the same substance
recovered from petitioner. The failure to establish the chain of custody is fatal to
the prosecution’s case. There can be no crime of illegal possession of a
prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated
was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY:

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY it must be stressed that the " corpus
delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the drug itself. This means that proof
beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY:

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY People v. Gutierrez, December 4,
2009 As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires
the presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. This would ideally cover the testimony about every link
in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in
evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a
description of the condition in which it was delivered to the next in the chain.

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ Custody and Disposition of

ConfiscatedDangerous Drugs:
JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/ Custody and Disposition of
ConfiscatedDangerous Drugs People v. Resurreccion , October 12, 2009 the
failure of the policemen to immediately mark the confiscated items does not
automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody . The failure to strictly
comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165 does not necessarily render an
accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/MARKING:

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/MARKING People v. Sanchez and
People v. Gum- Oyen RA 9165 does not specify a time frame for "immediate
marking," or where said marking should be done. What Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of
"marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence
seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and
photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather
than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the " chain of custody " rule requires
that the "marking" of the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same
items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence —
should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately
upon confiscation."

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/MARKING:

JURISPRUDENCE CHAIN OF CUSTODY/MARKING People v. Sanchez and
People v. Gum- Oyen To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody :
what is required is that the marking be made in the presence of the accused and
upon immediate confiscation. "Immediate Confiscation" has no exact definition.
testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police station and
in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with the
rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates
even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.

JURISPRUDENCE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY:

JURISPRUDENCE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY Adriano v. People of the
Phil, July 13, 2011 HELD: The presumption is that the policemen performed their
official duties regularly. In order to overcome this presumption, Imson must show
that there was bad faith or improper motive on the part of the policemen, or that
the confiscated items were tampered.

BUY-BUST OPERATION:
BUY-BUST OPERATION A form of entrapment as a valid and effective mode of
apprehending drug pushers (pp v. sembrano , 628 scra 328) A prior surveillance
much less a lengthy one, is not necessary during an entrapment – there is no
textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations (pp v. padua , 625 scra 220)
Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the money used
in a buy-bust operation (pp v. gonzaga , 632 scra 551). The marked money is not
indispensable but merely corroborative in nature.

BUY-BUST OPERATION:
BUY-BUST OPERATION A search warrant or warrant of arrest is not needed in a
buy-bust operation where the accused is caught in flagrante delicto in possession
of, and selling, dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer. The existence of
dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus delicti of the crime; What must also be
established is the fact that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is
the same substance offered in court as exhibit.

VALIDITY OF BUY-BUST OPERATION:OBJECTIVE TEST:

VALIDITY OF BUY-BUST OPERATION:OBJECTIVE TEST the details of the
purported transaction during the buy-bust operation must be clearly and
adequately shown: the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher
the offer to purchase and the promise or payment of the consideration until the
consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale.
BUY-BUST OPERATION:
BUY-BUST OPERATION Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable
requirement before police authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation – a buy-
bust operation is not invalidated by a mere non-coordination with the PDEA (Pp
v. Roa , 620 scra 359)

BUY-BUST OPERATION:
BUY-BUST OPERATION The accused is caught in the act and must be
apprehended on the spot; From the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the
absence of a warrant does not make the arrest illegal (Pp v. Marcelino 625 scra
632) Since the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that
the search was also valid, and a warrant was likewise not needed to conduct it.
(id) When an arrest is made during an entrapment operation, it is not required
that a warrant be secured in line with the provisions of Rule 113, Section 5(a) of
the Revised Rules of Court allowing warrantless arrest (Pp v. Sembrano 628 scra
328)

BUY-BUST OPERATION:
BUY-BUST OPERATION A search warrant or warrant of arrest is not needed in a
buy-bust operation where the accused is caught in flagrante delicto in possession
of, and selling , dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer (Pp v. Araneta , 634 scra
475) Absent any convincing countervailing evidence, the presumption is that the
members of the buy-bust team performed their duties in a regular manner. It was
certainly a job well done. (Id)

When in flagrante delicto arrest applicable?:

When in flagrante delicto arrest applicable? When in the presence of the law
enforcer or a private person the person to be arrested has committed a crime; is
actually committing; Is attempting to commit an offense The arresting therefore
must have personal knowledge of such fact or personal knowledge of such facts
or circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause

WARRANTLESS SEARCH:
WARRANTLESS SEARCH SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE this had been
justified on the ground that the mobility of motor vehicles makes it possible for
the vehicle to be searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the
warrant must be sought. Extensive Search is valid only as long as the officers
conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the
search that they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in
the vehicle to be searched.

WARRANTLESS SEARCH:
WARRANTLESS SEARCH EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
(Pp v. Mariacos , June 16, 2010 and Pp v. Aruta ) There was no reasonable time
to obtain a search warrant, especially since the identity of the suspect could not
be readily ascertained . His actuations also aroused the suspicion of the
officers conducting the operation. The Court held that in light of such
circumstances, to deprive the agents of the ability and facility to act promptly,
including a search without a warrant, would be to sanction impotence and
ineffectiveness in law enforcement, to the detriment of society.