RECENT JURISPRUDENCE IN SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
BY DEAN GEMY LITO FESTIN
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
1. Prosecution failed to prove the first three (3) links in the chain of
custody.
For a successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, all the following
elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object
of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and
the payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and
the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully consummate the
buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the
transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the
corpus delicti, as evidence. Moreover, since the corpus delicti in dangerous
drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drugs itself, proof beyond reasonable
doubt that the seized item is the very same object tested to be positive for
dangerous drugs and presented in court as evidence is essential in every
criminal prosecution under R.A. 9165. Because the existence of the
dangerous drug is crucial to a judgment of conviction, it is indispensable that
the identity of the prohibited drug be established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt to ensure that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. To
this end, the prosecution must establish the unbroken chain of custody of the
seized item.
The links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-
bust situation are as follows: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the
turnover of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover
by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the illegal drug
from the forensic chemist to the court.
• In the instant case, the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable
doubt the first three links in the chain of custody. The prosecution
evidence failed to convincingly show who between P/Insp. Bañares, as
poseur-buyer, and P/Insp. Demauro, as back-up and arresting officer,
marked the bag of marijuana seized from appellant with the initials "LQE"
dated "08-14-2005" at the PDEA Office.
• On the second link in the chain of custody, there is no showing who
between P/Insps. Bañares and Demauro turned over to the investigating
officer the drugs seized from appellant.
• With respect to the third link in the chain of custody, there is likewise no
indication as to the identity of the investigating officer who then turned
over the drugs to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination.
• The instant case failed to (a) to establish an unbroken chain of custody of
the bag of marijuana seized from appellant, (b) to prove that the specimen
found to be positive for marijuana upon laboratory examination, was the
same dangerous drugs seized from him, and (c) to proffer any justifiable
ground for the non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
• These flaws cast serious doubt on whether the specimen found to be
positive of marijuana upon laboratory examination was the same drugs
seized from appellant and offered in evidence before the trial court.
People vs Enad 783 SCRA 184 Feb 3, 2016
2. The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs
was complied with.
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements
must be sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor. In the case at bar, all elements for illegal sale were
duly established with accused-appellant having been caught inflagrante
delicto selling shabu through a buy-bust operation conducted by the buy-bust
team of PO3 Palabay. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and
the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummated the
buy-bust transaction. Therefore, Romel Sapitula y Paculan is liable for selling
shabu.
The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs
was complied with. The Court has ruled in People v. Enriquez, that the links
that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation are:
first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from
the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the
marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
In the case at bar, PO3 Palabay, the poseur buyer, positively
testified that he placed in his pocket the plastic sachet of shabu handed to
him by accused-appellant.
• At the time of arrest, he photographed accused-appellant, the area and
the sachet of shabu, marked the same and conducted the inventory
before the Barangay Chairman and another witness.
• PO3 Palabay further testified that he brought accused-appellant and the
sachet of shabu to the police station, and there, executed affidavits of
arrest and of the poseur buyer and made a request for laboratory
examination.
• PO3 Palabay then took accused-appellant and the sachet of shabu to the
crime laboratory and the latter was received by PSI Antonio. Chemistry
Report No. D-030-2011 signed by PI Manuel as Forensic Chemist and PSI
Antonio as Administering Officer confirmed that the sachet is positive for
the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• And finally, in open court, PO3 Palabayo pened the envelope from the
Forensic Chemist and identified it contents as the same sachet of shabu
he had purchased from accused-appellant.
• Hence, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were duly
preserved as the chain of custody remained intact. People vs Sapitula 784
SCRA 18 February 10, 2016
3. Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640
Prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance with
Section 21 of RA 9165
The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict
compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always
be possible. In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165
- which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA 10640 -
provide that the said inventory and photography may be conducted at the
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of
warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance with the requirements of
Section 21 of RA 9165 - under justifiable grounds -will not render void and
invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer or team. In other words, the failure of the apprehending
team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165
and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items
void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a)
there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In People v.
Almorfe, the Court explained that for the above-saving clause to apply, the
prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that
the integrity and value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been
preserved.
In this case, an examination of the records reveals that although the
requisite inventory and photography of the seized items were conducted in the
presence of Geronimo and an elected public official, the same was not done
in the presence of the representatives from the DOJ and the media. Moreover,
records reveal that the said inventory and photography of the seized items
were not done at the place of arrest but at the office of the apprehending
officers in Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City. Also, there were inconsistencies
in the statements of the members of the apprehending team as to why the
requisite inventory and photography were not done immediately after seizure
and confiscation of the dangerous drugs and at the place of Geronimo's arrest.
While the law allows that the same may be done at the nearest police station
or office of the apprehending team, the police officers must nevertheless
1|P a ge
provide justifiable grounds therefor in order for the saving clause to apply.
Here, the apprehending officers failed to discharge that burden.
Accordingly, the plurality of the breaches of procedure committed by
the police officers, unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate
against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. It
is well-settled that the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of
substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural
technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal
drug suspects. As such, since the prosecution failed to provide justifiable
grounds for non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended by RA
10640, as well as its IRR, Geronimo's acquittal is perforce in order. ( People
vs Jonas Geronimo y Pinlac September 11, 2017 G.R. No. 225500 J. Perlas-
Bernabe )
3. The prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been
preserved
Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Distribution
and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million
pesos (PI0,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug,
including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and
purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any such transactions. To transport
a dangerous drug is to "carry or convey [it] from one place to another."
For an accused to be convicted of this crime, the prosecution must prove its
essential element: the movement of the dangerous drug from one place to
another. In cases involving violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, the prosecution must prove "the existence of the prohibited drug.
" The prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been
preserved," because "the evidence involved—the seized chemical—is not
readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or
substituted." (Roberto Palo Y De Gula vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No.
192075 2016-02-10)
4. To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
drug are preserved, the chain of custody rule requires the
prosecution to be able to account for each link in the chain of
custody of the dangerous drug
In drug-related prosecutions, the State should not only establish all
the elements of the sale and possession of shabu under RA 9165, but also
prove the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, to discharge its overall duty of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The illegal drug
itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence
is vital for the conviction of the accused.
To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
drug are preserved, the chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to be
able to account for each link in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug,
from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was
presented in court. Testimony must be presented on every link in the chain of
custody, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized up to the time it is
offered in evidence.
In this case, after testifying about the poseur buyer buying the shabu
from appellant, PO2 Repompo no longer mentioned the succeeding actions of
the poseur buyer, particularly to whom the poseur buyer gave the shabu for
custody. The only conclusion from this omission is that PO2 Repompo did not
witness the subsequent acts of the poseur buyer, especially with regard to the
custody of the shabu
Even if PO2 Repompo did see clearly the alleged transaction, still
the substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug raise
doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.
In drug-related prosecutions, the State should not only establish all
the elements of the sale and possession of shabu under RA 9165, but also
prove the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, to discharge its overall duty of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The illegal drug
itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence
is vital for the conviction of the accused.
To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
drug are preserved, the chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to be
able to account for each link in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug,
from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was
presented in court. Testimony must be presented on every link in the chain of
custody, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized up to the time it is
offered in evidence. After testifying about the poseur buyer buying the shabu
from appellant, PO2 Repompo no longer mentioned the succeeding actions of
the poseur buyer, particularly to whom the poseur buyer gave the shabu for
custody. The only conclusion from this omission is that PO2 Repompo did not
witness the subsequent acts of the poseur buyer, especially with regard to the
custody of the shabu. (People of the Philippines vs. Virgilio A. Quim June 15,
2016 G.R. No. 213919 Carpio, J. )
5. Evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight
In this jurisdiction, the defense of denial and frame-up, like alibi, has
been viewed with disfavor for it can be easily concocted and is a common
defense ploy in drug cases. These weaknesses, however, do not add any
strength nor can they help the prosecution's case because the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight
In this case, the Court notes that the evidence for the defense is not
strong as the accused merely claimed that she was framed, and implied that
the plastic sachets confiscated from her were planted. In this case, however,
the procedural lapses in the handling and identification of the seized drugs,
as well as the unexplained discrepancy in the marking, collectively raise
doubts on whether the items presented in court were the exact same items
that were taken from Cayas when she was arrested. These constitute major
lapses that, standing unexplained, are fatal to the prosecution's case.
The petitioner is acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove her
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. (People of the Philippines vs. MaritessCayas
Y Calitis July 04, 2016 G.R. No. 206888 Brion, J.)
6. In prosecutions for illegal sale of drugs, what is material is proof
that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence.
In order to prove the transaction or sale, the following elements
must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.
The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense and to sustain a conviction, the identity and integrity of the corpus
delicti must be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily
arises from the "illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct,
not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution
either by accident or otherwise." In drugs cases, it is essential that the identity
of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. The mere fact
of unauthorized possession or sale is not sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt.
The fact that the substance said to be illegally sold is the very same substance
offered in court as exhibit must be established. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function.
In the case at bar, the court found several glaring gaps in the chain
of custody. The prosecution failed to establish an important element of the
offense, which is the identity of the object . (People of the Philippines Vs. Steve
Siaton Y Bate July 04, 2016 G.R. No. 208353 Perez, J.)
7. The chain-of-custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence,
by which the corpus delicti presented in court is shown to be one
and the same as that which was retrieved from the accused or
from the crime scene.
The Court has emphasized the import of Section 21 as a matter of
substantive law that mandates strict compliance. The Congress laid it down
as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law enforcement agents
who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those
suspected to be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs. Under
the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the government,
stringent compliance therewith is fully justified.
The Court resolves to acquit appellant on the ground of reasonable
doubt. The RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to consider the break in the
chain of custody of the seized drugs and the serious infirmity of the buy-bust
team's non-observance of the rules of procedure for handling illegal drug
items. The chain-of-custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence, by
which the corpus delicti presented in court is shown to be one and the same
as that which was retrieved from the accused or from the crime scene.
The substantial evidentiary gaps in the chain of custody of the
seized drugs put into question the reliability and evidentiary value of their
contents - whether these drugs are the same ones brought to the laboratory
for examination, found positive for shabu and then presented before the RTC.
The Court of Appeals thus gravely erred in ruling that there was an unbroken
chain of custody simply because the illegal drugs have been marked, sent to
the crime laboratory for analysis, and found positive for shabu, despite the
fact that the integrity of the confiscated items throughout the entire process
had never been established.
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs
embodied in Section 21 of R.A. 9161 also ensures the identity and integrity of
dangerous drugs seized. The provision requires that upon seizure of the illegal
drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall:
(a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and
(b) take photographs thereof
2|P a ge
 (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or
confiscated and
(d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (*Now
National Prosecution”s Office) and any elected public official
(e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies
thereof.
The Court has emphasized the import of Section 21 as a matter of
substantive law that mandates strict compliance. The Congress laid it down
as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law enforcement agents
who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those
suspected to be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs. Under
the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the government,
stringent compliance therewith is fully justified. (People of the Philippines vs.
Darius Reniedo Y Cauilan July 13, 2016 GR. No.20692,7 Ponente:Perez, J)
SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165 Comprehensive Drugs Act
Elements;
8. Integrity and evidentiary value of an illegal drug not compromised,
non-compliance with R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR may be excused
The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 5 Article II of
R.A. 9165, the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit
drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money
consummate the illegal transaction.
In the case at bar, all the requisites of the illegal sale of marijuana
were met. The identities of the buyer, the seller, the prohibited drug, and the
marked money have all been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the supporting documents they
presented and offered in evidence. In open court, Chumanao identified the
person of Belban; the 30 bricks of marijuana he marked; the markings he
placed on the two cartons, green-plastic bags, and the sack used to cover the
cartons; and the boodle money he prepared. Likewise, in her testimony,
Mosing identified Belban; the two cartons, the green plastics, and the 30
bricks of marijuana which were marked by Chumanao in her presence; the
booking sheet; and the requests for physical examination of the accused and
laboratory examination of the suspected illegal drugs. On her part, Asiong
affirmed the Joint affidavit she executed with Mosing and Macad as well as
identified Belban, the inventory sheet, and the photographs taken.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the prosecution was able to
establish with moral certainty and prove to the Court beyond reasonable doubt
that there is an unbroken chain of custody over the confiscated illegal drug,
from the time it was lawfully seized and came into the possession of the
apprehending officers up to the time it was presented and offered in evidence
before the trial court. As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of an illegal
drug were not compromised, non-compliance with R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR
may be excused. Accordingly, the prosecution presented every person who
touched the exhibit. They described how and from whom the seized marijuana
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in their possession,
the condition in which it was received, the condition it was delivered to the
next link in the chain, and 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. (People of the Philippines vs.
Belban Sic-open y Dimas Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule G.R.
No. 211680 September 21, 2016 Peralta, J.)
9. SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165 Comprehensive Drugs Act
Elements;
Integrity and evidentiary value of an illegal drug not compromised, non-
compliance with R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR may be excused
The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 5 Article II of
R.A. 9165, the following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The delivery of the illicit
drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money
consummate the illegal transaction .
In the case at bar, all the requisites of the illegal sale of marijuana were met.
The identities of the buyer, the seller, the prohibited drug, and the marked
money have all been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses and the supporting documents they presented and
offered in evidence. In open court, Chumanao identified the person of Belban;
the 30 bricks of marijuana he marked; the markings he placed on the two
cartons, green-plastic bags, and the sack used to cover the cartons; and the
boodle money he prepared. Likewise, in her testimony, Mosing identified
Belban; the two cartons, the green plastics, and the 30 bricks of marijuana
which were marked by Chumanao in her presence; the booking sheet; and the
requests for physical examination of the accused and laboratory examination
of the suspected illegal drugs. On her part, Asiong affirmed the Joint affidavit
she executed with Mosing and Macad as well as identified Belban, the
inventory sheet, and the photographs taken.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the prosecution was able to
establish with moral certainty and prove to the Court beyond reasonable doubt
that there is an unbroken chain of custody over the confiscated illegal drug,
from the time it was lawfully seized and came into the possession of the
apprehending officers up to the time it was presented and offered in evidence
before the trial court. As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of an illegal
drug were not compromised, non-compliance with R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR
may be excused. Accordingly, the prosecution presented every person who
touched the exhibit. They described how and from whom the seized marijuana
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in their possession,
the condition in which it was received, the condition it was delivered to the
next link in the chain, and 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. (People of the Philippines vs.
Belban Sic-open y Dimas Dangerous Drugs Act; Chain of Custody Rule, G.R.
No. 211680 September 21, 2016, Peralta, J.)
10. Marking the seized drugs:
Meaning and Significance
Chain of custody is defined as "the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant
sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature
of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and
time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping
and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
Marking the seized drugs or other related items immediately after
being seized from the accused is a crucial step to establish chain of custody.
"Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the
poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized to identify it
as the subject matter of the prohibited sale. Marking after seizure is the
starting point in the custodial link and is vital to be immediately undertaken
because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as
reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked
evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time
they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of
the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, planting, or
contamination of evidence.
In the present case, the prosecution presented conflicting
testimonies on who made the actual markings. PO3 Salazar claimed it was the
investigator who marked the sachets. However, PO2 Ilagan claimed in his
direct testimony that it was he who made the markings. The prosecution
simply failed to reconcile its witnesses’ conflicting. Inevitably, these
contradictions create doubt as to the integrity of the evidence against the
accused. The totality of evidence against Ameril cannot support his conviction.
The faiure of the prosecution to comply with Sec.21, Art. II of RA No. 9165 and
with the chain of custody requirement compromised the identity and
evidentiary value of the seized packs of shabu. (People of the Philippines v.
Mardan Ameril November 14, 2016 G.R. No. 203293 Brion, J.)
12. CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule,
outlining the procedure police officers must follow in handling the seized
drugs, in order to preserve its integrity and evidentiary value. Under the said
section, the apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and
confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in
the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized,
his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the
seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-
four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. The IRR of RA 9165 adds
that t the said inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest
police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless
seizure.
As a general rule, the apprehending team must strictly comply with
the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR. However,
their failure to do so does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over
the items as void and invalid if: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-
compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
3|P a ge
properly preserved. This applies only where the prosecution has recognized
the procedural lapses on the part of the police officers or PDEA agents, and
thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds; after which, the prosecution
must show that' the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have
been preserved.
Gamboa’s conviction under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 is not
proper. The apprehending team failed to comply with the chain of custody. The
prosecution has a failed to acknowledge the shortcomings of the
apprehending team in complying with Sec. 11, Article II of RA 9165 and its
IRR. Prosecution was silent on the issue of the absence of a representative
from the DOJ and elected public official to witness the inventory of the seized
items and receive copies of the same. There is also the unexplained dearth of
photographs of the seized items. There was failure to deliver said items to the
PNP crime laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours. (Antonio Gamboa y Delos
Santos Vs. People of the Philippines November 14, 2016 G.R.No. 220333
Perlas-Bernabe, J.)
13. CHAIN OF CUSTODY
Broken
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following
elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took
place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug
as evidence .On the other hand, a case of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs will prosper if the following elements are present: ( 1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug.
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, it is important for the prosecution to show the chain of custody over the
dangerous drug to establish the corpus delicti. This requirement necessarily
arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct,
not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or
substitution either by accident or otherwise.
To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of
the seized drug, evidence must show that the illegal drug presented in court
is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused; otherwise, the
prosecution for possession or for sale fails. The chain of custody rule performs
the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of
the evidence are removed.
In this case, prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. In illegal drug cases, the prosecution must establish all offenses
charged, as well as the corpus delicti. It has been held that the chain of
custody rule must be upheld, in this instant case it was not.
The chain of custody over the seized drugs had been broken, as
shown by the following circumstances: first, there was no evidence to show
when, where, and how these sachets of shabu were marked by POI Magora;
second, there is an utter absence of evidence indicating the identities of the
persons who took hold of the seized drugs from the time it was seized until it
was handed to the investigator; third, the circumstances in which the
investigating officer turned over the confiscated drugs to forensic chemist
were not shown; and finally, the stipulation between the prosecution and the
defense as to the forensic chemist's testimony did not establish how the
confiscated drugs were handled while in his custody and before its
presentation in court. ( People of the Philippines Vs. RamilPrudencio y
Bajamonde November 16, 2016 G. R. No. 205148 Brion, J.)
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
14. Failure to comply does not automatically impair the reliability of the
chain of custody
What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually
took place coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.
In the case at bar, the prosecution established that the illegal drug
was sold to the poseur-buyer PO3 Baruelo who, in exchange of the drugs
contained in a plastic sachet, gave a marked P500.00-peso bill to the
appellant, which was, upon apprehension, retrieved from his pocket. The
defense of the appellant that the police officers failed to mark, photograph
and inventory the seized items immediately after the arrest was bereft of
merit. Such failure does not automatically impair the reliability of the chain of
custody of the seized items as long as their integrity and evidentiary value are
preserved by the apprehending team. (People of the Philippines vs. Orlando
Fernandez December 7, 2016 G.R No. 210617 Perez, J.)
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
15. There exist justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and
evidentiary
value of the evidence have been preserved
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers
conducted the required physical inventory and take photograph of the objects
confiscated does not ipso facto render inadmissible in evidence the items
seized.
There is a proviso in the implementing rules stating that when it is
shown that there exist justifiable grounds and proof that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved, the seized items can
still be used in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused. (People of
the Philippines vs. Rosario Mahinay December 7, 2016 G.R No. 210656
Perez, J. )
CHAIN OF CUSTODY
16. Gaps create a reasonable doubt
The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually
taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus
delicti which means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime
charged. On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be
a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.
In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to demonstrate
substantial compliance by the apprehending officers with the safeguards
provided by R.A. No. 9165 as regards the rule on chain of custody. To begin
with, the records are bereft of any showing that an inventory of the seized
items was made. Neither does it appear on record that the apprehending team
photographed the contraband in accordance with law. Moreover, it has been
ruled that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by
the forensic chemist to the court.
Here, Palconit claimed that he had placed his initials on the seized
items. Based on his testimony, it is clear that the marking was not immediately
done at the place of seizure; instead, the markings were only placed at the
PDEA office, for which the prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason.
Even if the Court glosses over this lapse, still, it could not be said that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. For one,
neither in the direct examination nor in the cross-examination of Palconit was
it mentioned that the markings were made in the presence of accused-
appellant or his representatives. He merely testified that he placed the
markings at the PDEA office, without any allusion to the identities of the
persons who were present when he did the markings. Further, It is unlikely
that Palconit did not know the officer to whom he supposedly turned over the
seized drugs. Surely, this investigating officer worked with him in the same
office. Indeed, the apprehending officer and investigating officer might be one
and the same person. If that was the case, however, then there would have
been no need to say that Palconit turned over the seized items to the
investigator. He could have simply said that he was the one who conducted
the investigation and prepared the necessary documents for the filing of a
criminal case against accused-appellant.
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs,
conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of
the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral
certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are
present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first
place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be
established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a
guilty verdict.
In fine, the Court holds that the totality of the evidence presented
does not support a finding of guilt with the certainty that criminal cases
require. The procedural lapses committed by the apprehending team show
glaring gaps in the chain of custody, creating a reasonable doubt on whether
the shabu seized from accused-appellant was the same shabu that were
brought to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis, and ventually offered in
court as evidence. Hence, the corpus delicti has not been adequately proven.
(People of the Philippines vs. AnastacioHementiza y Dela Cruz March 22,
2017 G.R. No. 227398 Mendoza, J.)
17. ILLEGAL SALE
Elements are present
For the successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proven:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. The prosecution must
establish proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti.
4|P a ge
 Appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged.
All the elements for the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs was met. In the instant case, SPO1 Ellevera, the poseur- buyer in the
buy bust operation, identified appellant as the seller of the shabu and that
there was an exchange of a five hundred peso marked money and shabu.
(People of the Philippines Vs. Randy Cloma y Cabana November 16, 2016 G.R.
No. 215943 Carpio, J.)
Elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements
must be sufficiently proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. On the other hand, to prove the complicity of the accused
to illegal possession of a dangerous drug, there must be proof that (1) the
accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited
or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the
accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
(People of the Philippines vs. Donna Rivera Y Dumo July 20, 2016, G.R. No.
208837, Perez, J.)
Illegal sale not consummated when seller fails to deliver the illegal drug to the
buyer.
The illegal sale of dangerous drugs is not consummated when the
seller fails to deliver the illegal drug to the buyer. The commission of the
offense of illegal sale of prohibited drugs requires merely the consummation
of the selling transaction which happens the moment the buyer receives the
drug from the seller. What is important is that the poseur-buyer received the
drug from the accused.
In this case, a buy-bust operation was organized at the Narcotics
Division of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) pursuant to a tip given
by a confidential informant, who was able to set up a sale for thirty (30) ecstasy
tablets., the herein-appellant together with the confidential informant and an
agent of NBI (who acted as poseur-buyer) met in a café for the transaction.
The appellant then shows one tablet of ecstasy to the agent for inspection,
thereafter she excused herself to go to the restroom. At that certain point of
time, before the appellant could enter the restroom, the agent together with
his companion, introduced themselves as NBI agents and arrested her. The
said agent inspected her bag and found all 30 tablets of ecstasy.
The Court modified the decisions made by the lower court and CA
convicting the appellant for consummated sale of prohibited drugs to
conviction of crime of attempted sale of prohibited drugs for reason that the
evidence fails to establish the consummation of the said crime for the element
of receiving the prohibited drugs by the buyer lacks in this case. As provided,
a crime is merely attempted when the offender commences the commission
of the of crime directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of
execution which would produce the crime by reason of some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance. (People of the Philippines
vs. Minnie Tumulak Y Cuenca July 25, 2016, G.R. No. 206054, Brion, J.)
ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS
18. Consummated by the delivery of goods
Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer went through the
operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by appellant and the
dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered
consummated by the delivery of the goods. In Criminal Case No. 04-59517,
We agree with the lower courts that the aforesaid elements of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs were adequately and satisfactorily established by the
prosecution. (People of the Philippines Vs Susan M. Tamano December 16,
2016 G. R. No. 208643 Peralta, J.)
SECTION 7 (B)
19. Accused must knew the place was a drug den and still visited the place
Section 7 (b) of Republic Act No. 9165 penalizes the act of
knowingly visiting a drug den:
Section 7. Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or Resort. - The
penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to
twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be
imposed upon:
(a) Any employee of a den, dive or resort, who is aware of the nature
of the place as such; and
(b) Any person who, not being included in the provisions of the next
preceding paragraph, is aware of the nature of the place as such
and shall knowingly visit the same.
Before a person may be convicted under the foregoing provision, it
must be shown that he or she knew that the place visited was a drug den, and
still visited the place despite this knowledge.
The Court of Appeals relied only on drug test results to conclude that
the petitioners were aware of the nature of the subject house as a drug den.
True, the drug test results sufficiently proved that petitioners had
used drugs some time before their arrest. However, assuming that petitioners
were, in fact, at the alleged drug den before their arrest, there was no showing
how long petitioners were at the alleged drug den, or how long the drugs had
been in their system. In other words, there is no basis to assume that
petitioners used drugs at the moment immediately before arrest, and thus, at
the location of the arrest.
Assuming that persons who test positive for drugs used them at the
place of arrest is not sufficient to show that they were aware of the nature of
the suspected drug den before visiting it, absent any other circumstantial
evidence.
There was no attempt to show that petitioners knew the nature of the
alleged drug den, or even that they used drugs in the premises. The petitioners
were not found to be in possession of any drugs. When petitioners were
arrested, nobody was found "in the act of using, selling or buying illegal drugs,
nor packaging nor hiding nor transporting the same." There were no acts
alleged or evidence found, which would tend to show a familiarity with the
nature of the place as a drug den. (MEDEL CORONEL Y SANTILLAN v. PEOPLE,
March 13, 2017, GR No. 214536, LEONEN, J.)
20. Prosecution failed to prove that items seized were intended to be used
as drug paraphernalia
The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12 of
RA no. 9165 are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment,
apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the
body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law.
For the prosecution's failure to prove that the items seized were
intended to be used as drug paraphernalia, the petitioner must also be
acquitted of the charge under Section 12 of RA No. 9165. Indeed, the
supreme court cannot convict the petitioner for possession of drug
paraphernalia when it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that these
items were used or intended to be used as drug paraphernalia.
In the present case, there is no evidence showing that the aluminum
foil, tube, and lighters found in the petitioner's house were fit or intended for
introducing any dangerous drug into the body. The prosecution did not bother
to show that there were traces of shabu on any of these alleged drug
paraphernalia. In fact, it appears that the only evidence that the prosecution
offered to prove this charge is the existence of the seized items by themselves.
For the prosecution's failure to prove that the items seized were intended to
be used as drug paraphernalia, the petitioner must also be acquitted of the
charge under Section 12 of RA No. 9165. Indeed, the Supreme Court cannot
convict the petitioner for possession of drug paraphernalia when it was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt that these items were used or intended to
be used as drug paraphernalia. (Luis Deilo v. People of the Philippines Apr 18,
2016 G.R. No. 190466 Brion, J.)
Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002
21. Elements of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument,
apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or
other paraphernalia for or intended for smoking, consuming, administering,
injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2)
such possession is not authorized by law.
These elements are present in the case since the prosecution was
able to convincingly establish that appellant was in possession of drug
paraphernalia such as three (3) empty plastic sachets, one (1) improvised
tooter, and one (1) orange plastic straw, all of which were found positive for
traces of shabu. Appellant also did not present any proof that he was
authorized to possess the same. (People of the Philippines v. Gener Villar y
Poja November 09, 2016 G.R. No. 215937 Perez, J.)
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
Absence of sufficient proof of receipt thereof can be fatal to the prosecution’s
case.
5|P a ge

To be liable for violation of B.P. 22, the following essential elements
must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply
for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that
at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and
(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency
of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.
• As between the parties to this case, the dispute only pertains to the
presence or absence of the second element. In order to support her plea
for an acquittal, the petitioner particularly insists that she failed to
receive any notice of dishonor on the subject checks, which rendered
absent the element of knowledge of insufficient funds.
• Although a notice of dishonor is not an indispensable requirement in a
prosecution for violation of B.P. Big. 22 as it is not an element of the
offense, evidence that a notice of dishonor has been sent to and
received by the accused is actually sought as a means to prove the
second element.
• Jurisprudence is replete with cases that underscore the value of a
notice of dishonor in B.P. Big. 22 cases, and how the absence of
sufficient proof of receipt thereof can be fatal in the prosecution's case.
(Jesusa T. Dela Cruz vs. People of the Philippines August 3, 2016 G.R.
No. 163494 Reyes, J).
Absence of the requisite Notice of Dishonor is a clear ground for acquittal.
• There is no dispute that the first and the third elements are present in
this case. It was proven that petitioner issued the subject Landbank
checks in favor of Aurelio Tapang as payment for the balance of the
purchase of the house and lot owned by Elsa Alburo-Walter and when
presented for payment, the same checks were dishonored for the
reason of being drawn against insufficient funds.
• The remaining issue is whether or not the second element is present.
• A perusal of the records of the case, shows the absence of any indication
that petitioner received the notices of dishonor allegedly sent by
Landbank.
• The absence of proof that petitioner received any notice informing her
of the fact that her checks were dishonored and giving her five banking
days within which to make arrangements for payment of the said checks
prevents the application of the disputable presumption that she had
knowledge of the insufficiency of her funds at the time she issued the
checks
• Anent the demand letter sent through registered mail, the same was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner received the same.
• Although the Registry Return Card shows that the letter was received
and signed for by a Jennifer Mendoza who identified herself as a house
helper of petitioner, it was not proven that the same person is a duly
authorized agent of the addressee or the petitioner.
• For notice by mail, it must appear that the same was served on the
addressee or a duly authorized agent of the addressee.
• Thus, there being no clear showing that petitioner actually knew of the
dishonor of her checks, this Court cannot with moral certainty convict
her of violation of B.P. 22. The failure of the prosecution to prove that
petitioner was given the requisite notice of dishonor is a clear ground
for her acquittal. (Alburo vs. People 800 SCRA 247 August 15, 2016)
RA 7080- PLUNDER
The identification of the main plunderer as an element of the
crime of plunder is essential
In order to convict the offender under RA 7080, the identification of
the main plunderer sought to be prosecuted as an element of the crime of
plunder is essential. Such identification of the main plunderer was not only
necessary because the law required such identification, but also because it
was essential in safeguarding the rights of all of the accused to be properly
informed of the charges they were being made answerable for.
In this case, the Information alleged that during the period from
January 2008 to June 2010 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto xxx
accused Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the then President of the Philippines xxx
Benigno Aguas, then PCSO Budget and Accounts Manager, all public officers
committing the offense in relation to their respective offices and taking undue
advantage of their respective official positions, authority, relationships,
connections or influence, conniving, conspiring and confederating with one
another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass,
accumulate and/or acquire, directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the
aggregate amount or total value of PHP365,997,915.00, more or less, [by
raiding the public treasury].
The court ruled that the prosecution did not sufficiently proved that
a conspiracy between Arroyo and Aguas for the commission of the crime.
Furthermore, the prosecution failed to properly allege the main plunderer in
this case. Then, there was no proof of amassing, or accumulating, or acquiring
ill-gotten wealth of at least Php50 Million was adduced against GMA and
Aguas. Finally, The Prosecution failed to prove the predicate act of raiding the
public treasury (under Section 2 (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7080, as
amended). Therefore, the court annuls and set aside the decision rendered in
connection the criminal case. (Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo vs. People of the
Philippines, July 19, 2016 G.R. No. 220598, Bersamin, J.)
ARSON
Corpus delicti is proof that a fire occured and it was intentionally
caused.
In prosecuting arson, whether destructive or simple, the corpus
delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof that a fire occurred, and that it was
intentionally caused.
The Supreme Court ruled that simple arson, defined and punished
as explained in Section 1 of P.D. No. 1613, is essentially the destruction of
property by fire that is not under the circumstances enumerated under Article
320 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. In prosecuting
arson, whether destructive or simple, the corpus delicti rule is generally
satisfied by proof that a fire occurred, and that it was intentionally caused.
(People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Abayon y Aponte, September 14, 2016
G.R. No. 204891 Brion, J.)
NO COMPLEX CRIME OF ARSON WITH HOMICIDE
When the crime of arson absorbs the resultant death or is a
separate crime altogether
There is no complex crime of arson with homicide because the crime
of arson absorbs the resultant death or is a separate crime altogether.
The accused is not liable for arson with multiple homicide. The
Supreme Court ruled that in cases where both burning and death occur, in
order to determine what crime/crimes was/were perpetrated - whether arson,
murder or arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to ascertain the main
objective of the malefactor: (a) if the main objective is the burning of the
building or edifice, but death results by reason or on the occasion of arson,
the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is absorbed; (b) if, on the
other hand, the main objective is to kill a particular person who may be in a
building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such
goal the crime committed is murder only; lastly, (c) if the objective is, likewise,
to kill a particular person, and in fact the offender has already done so, but
fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the killing, then there are two
separate and distinct crimes committed — homicide/murder and arson.
In accordance to Section 5 of P.D. No. 1613, Abayon is charged with
the crime of arson because his intent was merely to destroy his family's
apartment through the use of fire. The resulting deaths that occurred,
therefore, should be absorbed by the crime of arson and only increases the
imposable penalty. (People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Abayon y Aponte,
September 14, 2016 G.R. No. 204891 Brion, J. )
ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW
To sustain a conviction for cattle-rustling, the identity of the stolen cattle
must be proven with certainty. Otherwise, the accused must be acquitted on
the ground of reasonable doubt.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove one of the elements of
cattle-rustling, specifically, that the lost carabao of Mario and Teresita Perez
is the same carabao allegedly stolen by petitioner.
The elements of cattle-rustling are: (1) large cattle is taken; (2) it
belongs to another; (3) the taking is done without the consent of the owner or
raiser; (4) the taking is done by any means, method or scheme; (5) the taking
is done with or without intent to gain; and (6) the taking is accomplished with
or without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.
Not all of the elements of cattle-rustling were proven by the
prosecution. The carabao transported by the accused was not sufficiently
proven to be the same carabao owned by the complainant. Ariel Lopez v.
People of the Philippines June 29, 2016 G.R. No. 212186 Leonen, J.
QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
Mere presence of the minor at the establishment, cannot by itself, prove
the fact of hiring and recruitment
Being the registered owner per se does not make one criminally liable
6|P a ge
 for the acts of trafficking
1. The act of recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of
persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or
across national borders which is the first element of Qualified
Trafficking is not presumed by just being the registered owner of
such establishments who do such acts.
2. The mere presence of the minor at the establishment, cannot by
itself, prove the fact of hiring and recruitment.
In this case, after being scolded by her mother and finding out that she
was adopted, AAA ran away from home on April 25, 2007. AAA’s friends
informed her mother that she is currently working as a Guest Relations Officer
(GRO at On Tap Videoke Bar registered in the name of Beverly Villanueva,
herein accused-appellant. An entrapment operation was made and as a result,
AAA was rescued. Later on when AAA and her mother had the chance to talk,
her mother found out that AAA was not recruited to work as a GRO and was
only allowed to stay at the videoke bar after running away from home. Accused
Beverly Villanueva also stated that she was not aware of the child’s presence
in the bar and that she merely gave her brother capital to operate such
business.
Under the premises, the accused is not liable for the crime of
Qualified Trafficking in Persons. The Supreme Court ruled that the elements
of trafficking in persons, derived from the expanded definition found in Section
3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 as amended by R.A. No. 10364, are as follows:
(1) The act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
transporton, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons
with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across
national borders;"
(2) The means used include "by means of threat, or use of force,
or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of
power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve
the consent of a person having control over another person;" and
(3) The purpose of trafficking includes "the exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced
labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of
organs."
In the case at bar, the mere presence of the minor at the
establishment, cannot by itself, prove the fact of hiring and recruitment. None
of the prosecution witnesses was able to testify on this regard, and was only
able to confirm the minor's presence at the videoke bar. Even the alleged
mother of the minor testified that she never saw [AAA] drinking, smoking or
singing at the establishment. She further testified that the minor admitted to
her that she was never hired to work at the establishment and the she was
only there in order for her to have a place to stay and reside. Furthermore,
recruiting, harboring, or maintaining a person for the purpose of exploitation
are acts performed by persons who may or may not be registered owners of
establishments. Thus, being the registered owner per se does not make one
criminally liable for the acts of trafficking committed in the establishment.
People of the Philippines vs. Beverly Villanueva y Manalili alias “Bebang”,
September 14, 2016 G.R. No. 210798, Perez, J.
ESTAFA
In this case, ccused Spouses Fernando Capulong (Fernando) and
Anita M. Capulong (Anita), (together Spouses Capulong) have previously
mortgaged their Isuzu truck in favor of one FRANCISCA P. DE GUZMAN. The
spouses then induced her thru false representation to lend back to them the
Registration Certificate and the Official Receipt of Payment of registration fees
of the above mortgaged truck under the pretext that they would use said
documents in applying for additional loan and/or show said documents to
somebody interested to buy said truck, but said accused once in possession
of said documents, instead of doing so, concealed or destroyed the above-
described registration certificate and the official receipt, thereby preventing
Francisca P. de Guzman from registering said chattel mortgage with the Land
Transportation Office; thereafter, herein accused even replaced the motor of
subject truck with a different one.
Anita is convicted of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 3 (c) of
RPC, which provides:
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of
the means mentioned hereinbelow shall be punished by:
x x xx
3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
xxx
*(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any
court record, office files, document or any other papers.
Contrary to Anita's supposition, neither Article 315, paragraph 3 (c)
of the RPC nor Article 535, paragraph 9 of the old penal code requires that the
documents or papers are evidence of indebtedness. Notably, while the old
provision broadly covered "any process, record, document, or any other paper
of any character whatsoever," the new provision refers to "documents or any
other papers." Indeed, there is no limitation that the penal provision applies
only to documents or papers that are evidence of indebtedness.
For the purpose of proving the existence of injury or damage, it is
unnecessary to inquire whether, as a matter of fact, the unpaid debt could be
or had been successfully collected. The commission of the crime is entirely
independent of the subsequent and casual event of collecting the amount due
and demandable, the result of which, whatever it may be, can in no wise have
any influence upon the legal effects of the already consummated concealment
of documents.
The extent of a fraud, when it consists of the concealment of a
document, should be graded according to the amount which the document
represents, as it is evident that the gravity of the damage resulting therefrom
would not be the same. Here, the OR-CR concealed pertains to the loan
amount of ₱700,000.00; consequently, this must serve as the basis for
grading the penalty corresponding to the crime. *The damage results from the
deprivation suffered by De Guzman of the concealed documents which are
indispensable parts of the chattel mortgage, not the loss of the loan value
itself. (ANITA CAPULONG vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES February 27, 2017
G.R. No. 199907)
In the instant case, the crime of estafa charged against petitioners
is defined and penalized by Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal
Code:
The elements of the said crime are as follows: (1) there must be a
false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means; (2) such false pretense,
fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must
have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means and was
thus induced to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result thereof,
the offended party suffered damage.19
However, the crime petitioner Norma Gamaro was convicted of is
estafa under Article 315, paragraph (b) of the Revised Penal Code:
The elements of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) are as
follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by
the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any
other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same;
(2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property
by the offender or a denial of the receipt thereof; (3) that the misappropriation
or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) that there is a
demand made by the offended party on the offender. ( NORMA C. GAMARO
and JOSEPHINE G. UMALI vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES February 27,
2017G.R. No. 211917)
R.A. No. 6539
CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE
A person found in possession of the personal effects
presumed as the author of the aggression
The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under the R.A. No.
6539, as amended are the following:
1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;
3. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that the
taking was committed by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things; and
4. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle.
Records show that all the elements of camapping in the instant case
are present and proven during the trial.
The presumption that a person found in possession of the personal
effects belonging to the person robbed and killed is considered the author of
the aggression, the death of the person, as well as the robbery committed, has
been invariably limited to cases where such possession is either unexplained
or that the proffered explanation is rendered implausible in view of
independent evidence inconsistent thereto. The said principle may be applied
in this case as the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and carnapping
being the same. Here, Donio failed to produce the vehicle's papers at the
checkpoint. He impersonated the victim before the police officers when his
identity was asked, and left under the guise of getting the said documents. It
was also established that he and the others were strangers to Rodrigo. Donio's
unexplained possession, coupled with the circumstances proven in the trial,
7|P a ge
therefore, raises the presumption that he was one of the perpetrators
responsible for the unlawful taking of the vehicle and Raul's death. (PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ENRILE DONIO y UNTALAN March 1, 2017, G.R. No.
212815)
THE ANTI-CARNAPPING LAW
Original criminal design was carnapping and the killing perpetrated
"in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion
thereof"
The Anti-Carnapping Law is a special law, different from the crime
of robbery and theft included in the Revised Penal Code. It particularly
addresses the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to
another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. But a careful
comparison of this special law with the crimes of robbery and theft readily
reveals their common features and characteristics, to wit: unlawful taking,
intent to gain, and that personal property belonging to another is taken without
the latter’s consent. However, the Anti-Carnapping Law particularly deals with
the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. Hence, a motor vehicle is said to
have been carnapped when it has been taken, with intent to gain, without the
owner’s consent, whether the taking was done with or without the use of force
upon things. Without the Anti-Carnapping law, such unlawful taking of a motor
vehicle would fall within the purview of either theft or robbery which was
certainly the case before the enactment of said statute.
Frank Karim Langaman and his girlfriend Kathlyn Irish Mae
Cervantes were aboard Frank’s motorcycle, a green Honda Wave 125. When
they were about to leave, two (2) men, both wearing jackets and bonnets
suddenly approached them, followed by a third man who was earlier standing
at a post. One of the three men held Frank by the neck and shot Frank causing
the latter to fall down. The same man pointed his gun at Kathlyn and
demanded to give him her cell phone. After Kathlyn gave her cell phone, the
same man hit her on the back. Kathlyn pretended to be unconscious and saw
that the men searched the body of Frank for any valuables. While the incident
was taking place, the second man took Frank’s motorcycle, while the third
man, herein appellant, just stood to guard them and acted as the look-out.
Afterwards, the three men left together riding Frank’s motorcycle.
Accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of carnapping. The elements of
carnapping as defined and penalized under R.A. No. 6539, as amended are
the following:
1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;
2. That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the offender himself;
3. That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof; or that
the taking was committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things; and
4. That the offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle.
Under the last clause of Section 14 of the R.A. No. 6539, as amended,
the prosecution has to prove the essential requisites of carnapping and of the
homicide or murder of the victim, and more importantly, it must show that the
original criminal design of the culprit was carnapping and that the killing was
perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the carnapping or on the
occasion thereof." In other words, to prove the special complex crime of
carnapping with homicide, there must be proof not only of the essential
elements of carnapping, but also that it was the original criminal design of the
culprit and the killing was perpetrated in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on the occasion thereof.
In this particular case, all the elements are present as the pieces of
evidence show that there were two (2) men both wearing jackets and bonnets,
together with the appellant who approached the victim and the witness
Kathlyn and employed force and intimidation upon them and thereafter
forcibly took the victim’s motorcycle and then shot the victim on the neck
causing his death. There was indeed a positive and unequivocal identification
of the accused. It has long been settled that where the witnesses of the
prosecution were not actuated by ill motive, it is presumed that they were not
so actuated and their testimony is entitled to full faith and credit. (People of
the Philippines vs. Jeffrey Macaranas y Fernandez G.R. No. 226846, June 21,
2017 Peralta, J.)
DO NOT COPY, CITE, OR DISTRIBUTE
WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR.
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA
May be charged in one information
It is well-settled in jurisprudence that a person may be charged and
convicted for both illegal recruitment and estafa. Illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum, while estafa is mala in se. In the first, the criminal intent of the
accused is not necessary for conviction. In the second, such intent is
imperative. (People of the Philippines vs. Michelle Dela Cruz G.R. No. 214500,
June 28, 2017 Peralta, J. )
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA
1. Conviction for illegal recruitment in large scale does not preclude
the filing of estafa case
Illegal recruitment is committed by a person who: (a) undertakes any
recruitment activity defined under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice
enumerated under Article 34 and Article 38 of the Labor Code; and (b) does
not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers. It is committed in large scale when it is committed
against three or more persons individually or as a group. The CA properly
affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant by the RTC for illegal
recruitment committed in large scale because she had committed acts of
recruitment against at least three persons despite her not having been duly
licensed or authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA) for that purpose.
In the case at bar, the conviction of the accused-appellant for illegal
recruitment committed in large scale did not preclude her personal liability
for estafa under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code on the ground of
subjecting her to double jeopardy. The elements of estafa as charged are,
namely: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by
means of deceit; and (2) the offended party, or a third party suffered damage
or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. The active representation by the
accused-appellant of having the capacity to deploy abroad despite not having
the authority or license to do so from the POEA constituted deceit as the first
element of estafa. Her representation induced the victim to part with his
money, resulting in damage that is the second element of
the estafa. Considering that the damage resulted from the deceit, the CA's
affirmance of her guilt for estafa as charged was in order. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. MARISSA BAYKER G.R. No. 170192, February 10, 2016
Essential elements thereof
The essential elements of illegal recruitment in large scale are: 1)
the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers as
defined in Art. 13 of Labor code, 2) she had not complied with the guidelines
issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment and 3) she committed
unlawful acts against three or more persons.
In the case at bar, she did not secure a license or authority to recruit
and deploy workers from the Secretary of Labor and Employment and extorted
money from the complainants. Hence, she is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
(People of the Philippines vs. Delia Camannon, August 24, 2016 G.R. No.
199497)
All the elements attending the crime of illegal recruitment in large
scale are met, namely: (1) Owen and Beatriz Cagalingan do not have a valid
license or authority for the recruitment and placement of workers, (2) such
recruitment is within the meaning of the term “recruitment and placement”
under Article 13(b) of the Labor Code and Article 6 of RA 8042, (3) and such
illegal recruitment was done to five (5) private complainants. (People of the
Philippines Vs. Owen Marcelo Cagalingan and Beatriz B. Cagalingan
November 23, 2016 G.R. No. 198664 Bersamin)
-------------------------------- END --------------------------------
8|P a ge