R.A.

9165: COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

ANDY QUELNAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 150917 September 27, 2006.
Justice Tinga
FACTS:

A team from the Police Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC) of the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG) went to the Cityland Condominium in Makati to implement a
search warrant. Upon arrival, they went directly to the Security Office of said building to seek assistance
in serving a warrant. Security Officer Celedonio Punsaran (Punsaran) accompanied the group and they
proceeded to Unit 615.
At their knocking, a male person naked from the waist up opened the door. He was later identified
as petitioner. SPO2 Sinag presented the search warrant to petitioner. Upon entry, the police operatives
searched the unit, which was composed of a small room with a plywood divider separating the sala from
the bedroom. In the presence of petitioner and Punsaran, the group started searching the place and
eventually found on top of the bedroom table three (3) pieces of transparent plastic sachets containing
white crystalline substances later confirmed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) forensic
chemist as shabu, plastic tubings, weighing scales, an improvised burner, and empty transparent plastic
sachets. Thereafter, the group prepared a receipt of the properties seized and an Affidavit of Orderly
Search allegedly signed by petitioner in their presence and that of Punsaran. Petitioner was arrested and
subsequently charged in court.
After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty of violating Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 6425, as amended.

ISSUE:
Is petitioner guilty of the crime for which he was convicted?

HELD:
Yes. In every prosecution for the illegal possession of shabu, the following essential elements
must be established: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not
authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug
is a regulated drug.
More importantly, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess the drug.
Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On
the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the
accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.
Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The fact of possession may be proved by direct or
circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must
prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place under his
control and dominion, as well as the character of the drug. Since knowledge by the accused of the
existence and character of the drug in the place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal
act, the same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over which

57
the accused has control or dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any satisfactory
explanation.
Although the shabu was not found by the searching team on his person but in the bedroom of the
subject premises, appellant is deemed in possession thereof since he was the only person in said premises.
Moreover, at the time of entry of the searching team in the subject premises, appellant was half-naked
from the waist up which, as the trial court correctly concluded, only "indicates extreme familiarity and
gives the impression of he being at home" in the premises, of which he was the registered owner.

58
 COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LORIE VILLAHERMOSA y LECO

G.R. No. 186465, June 1, 2011

FACTS:
Lorie Villahermosa, was charged with violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165.
There are three separate informations of the criminal case for the sale, and possession of dangerous drugs,
in this case, Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), and possession of paraphernalia for dangerous
drugs. The said illegal drugs were recovered from the accused through a buy-bust operation conducted
by the PDEA and MADAC inside the Manila South Cemetery in Makati City. A telephone call from a
concerned citizen to the PDEA reporting that the accused is involved in the rampant selling of illegal
drugs in the area prompted this action from the authorities. Silverio, a MADAC operative and PO2 Tizon,
a PDEA officer, were assigned as poseur-buyer and arresting officer, respectively. During the
consummation of the sale between Silverio and the accused, the latter took out two small plastic sachets
from her pocket containing white crystalline substance and handed the same to Silverio, who in turn
handed her the marked money. With that, Tizon introduced himself as a PDEA officer and arrested the
accused, and at the same time, the rest of the members of the buy- bust team hiding nearby followed the
arrest.PO2 Tizon then recovered from her six more small plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance, the buy-bust money consisting of four pieces of P100.00 peso bills and the following drug
paraphernalia that were inside the plastic bag appellant was carrying at the time of her arrest, to wit: 14
pieces of unused transparent plastic sachets, three disposable lighters, an improvised tooter and five strips
of aluminum foil. Afterwards, the accused was brought to MADAC Cluster 3 Office at the barangay hall
of Barangay Sta. Cruz, Makati City, for investigation. The items recovered from the accused were all
properly marked and photographed and was later on sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory, which all tested
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Accused’s drug test also yielded a positive result.
Appellant denied all the charges against her. Nevertheless, she was still convicted for violation of RA
9165, hence this appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Lorie Villahermosa is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5,
11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165.

HELD:
Yes. The prosecution clearly established beyond reasonable doubt appellant’s guilt for the offense
of illegal sale of shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA. 9165. The testimony
of Silverio clearly established in detail how his transaction
with appellant came about commencing from the moment he approached appellant and expressed his
intention of buying the goods appellant was selling, i.e., shabu, until the time appellant handed him the
two small plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, which upon examination yielded
positive results to the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, and in exchange to that he

59
handed appellant four pieces of P100.00 peso bills marked money amounting to P400.00 that
consummated the sale transaction between him and appellant.
The appellant’s guilt for the crime of illegal possession of shabu, a dangerous drug, in clear
violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, has also been duly proven by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. Incident to her lawful arrest resulting from the buy-bust operation, appellant was
further found to have in her possession six more small plastic sachets of shabu which were presented and
identified to be the same objects recovered from appellant in court. In addition, there is no evidence to
show that appellant had the legal authority to possess the six small plastic sachets of shabu recovered
from her. It has been jurisprudentially settled that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie
evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a
satisfactory explanation of such possession. Hence, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to
explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi. In this case, appellant miserably failed to explain
her absence of knowledge or animus possidendi of the shabu recovered from her.
In the same vein, it cannot be denied that on the occasion of her arrest for having been caught in
flagrante delicto selling shabu, a plastic bag was also recovered in her possession containing the
following drug paraphernalia, to wit: 14 pieces of unused transparent plastic sachets, three disposable
lighters, an improvised tooter and five strips of aluminum foil.
Possession of the same was in clear violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165.
RATIO: In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu in this case, the following
elements must concur: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration of the
sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 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. Thus, what is material to a prosecution
for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that the illicit transaction took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. Such proof is present in this
case.
In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, e.g., shabu, on the other hand, it must
be shown that: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a
regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug. These circumstances of illegal possession are obtaining in the present case.
In violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 was already consummated the moment appellant was
found in possession of the said articles without the necessary license or prescription. What is primordial
is the proof of the illegal drugs and paraphernalia recovered from the petitioner.

60
 T-5 ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CALEXTO DUQUE FUNDALES, JR.

G.R. No. 184606 September 5, 2012
Justice Del Castillo

FACTS:

On the evening of December 2, 2003, the Chief of the Intelligence Unit of the Station Anti-Illegal
Drug Special Task Force of Parañaque City Police, Police Superintendent Alfredo Valdez (PSupt.
Valdez), received an information from a confidential informant about the illegal drug trade operations
conducted by the Fundales brothers. The group then proceeded to 008 Jordan Street, Sitio Nazareth,
Barangay San Isidro, Parañaque City for the buy-bust operation. The informant then introduced PO1
Soquiña to the appellant as the person interested in buying shabu worth P 500.00. After PO1 Soquiña
handed the P 500.00 marked money to the appellant, the latter then went inside his house and when he
reappeared, he handed to PO1 Soquiña five plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. PO1
Soquiña then lit a cigarette which was the pre- arranged signal to inform the rest of the team that the buy-
bust operation had been consummated.

On December 8, 2003, appellant was charged with violations of Section 5 (illegal sale of
dangerous drugs), Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs), and Section 12 in relation to
Section 14 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia) of Article II, RA No. 9165. During arraignment,
the appellant and his co-accused pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the parties agreed to terminate the pre-
trial and set the case for trial on the merits.

On March 18, 2006, the RTC rendered its Decision convicting appellant in Criminal Case No.
03-1425 for illegal sale of shabu and dismissing Criminal Case No. 03-1426 for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and Criminal Case No. 03-1427 for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, for
insufficiency of evidence.

In finding appellant guilty of illegal sale of shabu, the RTC gave due consideration to the
testimonies of the law enforcement officers. It held that “no ill-motive or wrongdoing could be ascribed
to the herein police officers with respect to the buy-bust operation " It gave full credit and weight to the
testimony of PO1 Soquiña who positively identified the appellant as the person from whom he bought
five plastic sachets of shabu during the buy-bust operation. On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial courts.
Not satisfied with the Decision of the CA, the appellant is now before this Court adopting the same
issues he raised in the appellate court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article
II of RA No. 9165.

61
HELD:
Yes. The Court is convinced that the prosecution sufficiently discharged the burden of
establishing the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and in proving the guilt of the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt.
"Conviction is proper in prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the following
elements are present: (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 thereto."

The identity of the buyer and the seller were both established by the prosecution, appellant being
the seller and PO1 Soquiña as the poseur-buyer. The object of the transaction was the five sachets of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and the consideration was the P 500.00 marked money.

Both such object and consideration have also been sufficiently established by testimonial and
documentary evidence presented by the prosecution. As to the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor, PO1 Soquiña caught appellant in flagrante delicto selling and delivering the prohibited
substance during a buy-bust operation. He also personally handed to appellant the marked money as
payment for the same. Clearly, the above-mentioned elements are present in this case.

62
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. BALTAZAR BONGALON y MATEOS,
G.R. No. 125025, January 23, 2002

FACTS:
That on or about the 8th day of December 1994, in the Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused (Baltazar
Bongalon), not being lawfully authorized by law, and by means of motor vehicle, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to another, one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic bag/sachet containing brown crystalline substance weighing 250.70 grams, which
was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug, in
violation of the above-cited law. Accused refuted the claim of the prosecution witnesses that he was
alone when the NARCOM agents arrested him for the alleged unlawful sale of shabu. Allegedly, the
buy-bust operation was bogus and the NARCOM agents framed him for extortion. After the trial, the
trial court found the accused guilty as charged. He was sentenced to suffer the death penalty and ordered
to pay a fine of ₱1,000,000.00

ISSUE:
Whether or not the buy-bust operation conducted against the accused which resulted to his arrest
is valid?

RULING:

We affirm the judgment of the trial court, with modification as to the fine imposed. The appeal
hangs mainly on the alleged lack of credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the frame-up-for-
extortion theory. It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are presumed to have
performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The prosecution
witnesses, namely, PO3 Castañeto and PO3 Galos, testified that the Narcotics Command in Camp
Ricardo Papa in Taguig received a report from an informant that the appellant was engaged in the illegal
sale of shabu. Acting on the said tip, PO3 Castañeto was designated by P/Sr. Insp. Mabanag to lead the
buy-bust operation team against the appellant. With the informant’s help, PO3 Castañeto negotiated with
the appellant the possible purchase of 250 grams of shabu for ₱250,000.00. The next day, PO3 Castañeto
called the appellant to confirm if their transaction would push through and the latter agreed to deliver the
subject 250 grams of shabu. The appellant set their meeting place and time. As PO3 Castañeto did not
know the appellant before the buy-bust operation, the informant accompanied him to the meeting place.
The informant identified the red Nissan Sentra sedan driven by the appellant. It parked right in front of
their car. The informant and PO3 Castañeto approached the appellant, had a brief conversation with the
latter and, upon his request, showed him the money. The appellant gave the package containing
the shabu to PO3 Castañeto upon receiving the boodle money. The sale of the shabu was consummated.
PO3 Castañeto then gave the pre-arranged signal by waiving his left hand to the other members of the
buy-bust team who immediately apprehended the appellant. Clearly, the appellant was arrested by virtue
of a valid buy-bust operation.

63
 ANDY QUELNAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 150917 September 27, 2006.
Justice Tinga

FACTS:
A team from the Police Assistance and Reaction Against Crime (PARAC) of the Department of
Interior and Local Government (DILG) went to the Cityland Condominium in Makati to implement a search
warrant. Upon arrival, they went directly to the Security Office of said building to seek assistance in serving
a warrant. Security Officer Celedonio Punsaran (Punsaran) accompanied the group and they proceeded to
Unit 615.

At their knocking, a male person naked from the waist up opened the door. He was later identified as
petitioner. SPO2 Sinag presented the search warrant to petitioner. Upon entry, the police operatives searched
the unit, which was composed of a small room with a plywood divider separating the sala from the bedroom.
In the presence of petitioner and Punsaran, the group started searching the place and eventually found on top
of the bedroom table three (3) pieces of transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances
later confirmed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) forensic chemist as shabu, plastic tubings,
weighing scales, an improvised burner, and empty transparent plastic sachets. Thereafter, the group prepared
a receipt of the properties seized and an Affidavit of Orderly Search allegedly signed by petitioner in their
presence and that of Punsaran. Petitioner was arrested and subsequently charged in court.

After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty of violating Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 6425, as amended.

ISSUE:
Is petitioner guilty of the crime for which he was convicted?

HELD:
Yes. In every prosecution for the illegal possession of shabu, the following essential elements must
be established: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by
law or by duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated
drug.

More importantly, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the intent to possess the drug.
Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual
possession exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the
other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or
when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession
or control is not necessary. The fact of possession may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and
any reasonable inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must prove that the accused had
knowledge of the existence and presence of the drug in the place under his control and dominion, as well as
the character of the drug. Since knowledge by the accused of the existence and character of the drug in the
place where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the same may be presumed from the fact
that the dangerous drug is in the house or place over which the accused has control or dominion, or within
such premises in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.

64
 Although the shabu was not found by the searching team on his person but in the bedroom of the
subject premises, appellant is deemed in possession thereof since he was the only person in said premises.
Moreover, at the time of entry of the searching team in the subject premises, appellant was half-naked from
the waist up which, as the trial court correctly concluded, only "indicates extreme familiarity and gives the
impression of he being at home" in the premises, of which he was the registered owner.

65
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SUSAN M. TAMAÑO AND JAFFY B. GULMATICO

G.R. No. 208643. December 5, 2016

FACTS:

On July 30, 2004, appellants were charged with Violation of Section 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs), Section 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and Section 12 (Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drug Paraphernalia), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in five (5) separate Informations. Upon
arraignment on September 13, 2004, both appellants pleaded not guilty to the respective charges against
them.

The evidence of the prosecution may be summed up as follows: On July 22, 2004, P03 Gepaneca of the
PDEA was informed by a confidential agent that one alias "Susan Kana" was selling shabu in Brgy.
Gustilo, Zone 6, Lapaz, Iloilo City. The following day, P03 Gepaneca and the agent conducted a
surveillance of the said area wherein the agent pointed to a woman identified as "Susan Kana."
On July 27, 2004, after confirmation from the agent that that they could purchase shabu from "Susan
Kana," a buy-bust team was formed by P/Sr. Inspector Rapiz. Around 11:30 in the morning, the team
proceeded to the target area in Brgy. Gustilo. After waiting for a while, appellants arrived. P03 Gepaneca
was introduced by the agent to one Susan Kana who turned out to be appellant Susan Tamafio. Then,
P03 Gepaneca took the P500 buy-bust money and handed it to appellant Tamafio who, in tum, told
appellant Gulmatico to give a sachet of shabu to P03 Gepaneca. After appellant Gulmatico handed to
P03 Gepaneca one (1) plastic sachet of shabu weighing 0.220 gram (Exhibits "J-1 "), the latter took off
his cap as a signal that the transaction was consummated. At that point, PO1 Aguenido immediately
arrested and searched the persons of appellants. The P500.00 bill (Exhibits "M-1 ") was recovered from
the right hand of appellant Tamafio; and from her right pocket, a big plastic sachet was recovered
containing three (3) plastic sachets of suspected shabu with markings "Susan", "Merriam and "Kelly"
(Exhibits "J-2 ", "J-3 ", "J-4") with a total weight of 0.345 gram. Also, four (4) empty plastic sachets and
two (2) pieces of disposable lighters (Exhibits "P-1 " and "P-2 "), among others, were recovered from the
bag of appellant Tamañio.
On the other hand, POI Aguenido recovered from the right pocket of appellant Gulmatico twenty-four
(24) sachets of suspected shabu (Exhibits "K-2" to "K-25 ", "E-2-A ") with a total weight of 8.695 grams
and two (2) small sachets of suspected shabu (Exhibits "K-27" and "K-28"); and, from his plastic bag
were recovered fifteen (15) empty plastic sachets, one (1) plastic straw (Exhibits "L-1 ") and nine (9)
sliced aluminum foils (Exhibits "T-1" to "T-9 "). The seized items were brought to the police officers'
office and were accordingly marked by SP03 Calaor and turned over to PDEA Exhibit Custodian SP04
Gafate. The following day, SP03 Calaor took the same items to the Iloilo City Prosecution Office where
they were all inventoried. Thereafter, SP03 Calaor submitted some of the items, including the sachets of
suspected shabu, to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. P/Insp. Ompoy, Forensic Chemical
Officer, examined the sachets, and the contents turned positive to the test for methampheatmine
hydrochloride (shabu), while the plastic straw revealed traces of shabu, as stated in Chemistry Report
No. D-17304 (Exhibits "E" and "E-3 '').

66
On May 29, 2007, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting appellants of Violation of Sections 5, 11 and
12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. On August 31, 2012, the CA affirmed the appellants' conviction.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the buy-bust operation conducted by the police was valid.

2. Whether the chain of custody rule was complied.

RULINGS:

1. Yes. In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu in this case, the
following elements must be sufficiently proved to sustain a conviction therefor: ( 1) the identity of the
buyer, as well as the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drugs seized as evidence. The commission of the
offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction,
which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. 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.

The appellants who were caught in flagrante delicto were positively identified by the prosecution
witnesses as the same persons who sold one (I) plastic sachet containing 0.220 gram of white crystalline
substance, later confirmed as shabu, for a consideration of P500.00. The said plastic sachet of shabu was
presented in court, which the prosecution identified to be the same object sold by appellants. Likewise,
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses established how the transaction with appellants happened
from the moment the informant introduced P03 Gepaneca, the poseur-buyer, to appellants, as someone
interested in buying their stuff, up to the time P03 Gepaneca handed to appellant Tamafio the P500.00
bill and, in turn, appellant Gulmatico handed to him the plastic sachet of suspected shabu, thus,
consummating the sale transaction between them. SP03 Calaor caused the plastic sachet of suspected
shabu be examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. The item weighing 0.220 gram was tested positive to
the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), as evidenced by Chemistry Report No. D-17304
prepared by P/Insp. Ompoy, the Forensic Chemical Officer. It must be noted that the defense admitted
the expertise of P/Insp. Ompoy who examined the drug specimens. Thus, the collective evidence
presented during the trial by the prosecution adequately established that a valid buy-bust operation was
conducted. Appellants conspired and confederated with each other to sell shabu. Appellant Tamafio
received the P500 bill, while appellant Gulmatico handed the shabu to the buyer. Their respective acts
lead to no other conclusion except that they have a common design and purpose -to sell shabu.

With respect to the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must
be proved: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized
by law, and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.

67
We also conform to the lower courts' findings that all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs were adequately proven by the prosecution. When an accused is caught in flagrante delicto in
accordance with Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, the police officers
are not only authorized, but are duty-bound, to arrest him even without a warrant.18 Thus, since
appellants' arrest was legal, the search and seizure that resulted from it were likewise lawful.

2. Yes. We find untenable the contention of appellants that since the provision of Section 21,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, the prosecution allegedly failed to
prove the identity and integrity of the seized prohibited drugs.

In the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes
the very corpus delicti of the offense and, in sustaining a conviction therefor, the identity and integrity
of the corpus delicti must definitely 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. Thus, to remove any doubt
or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the
illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant;
otherwise, the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165 fails. In this
regard, the aforesaid provisions outline the procedure to be observed by the apprehending officers in the
seizure and custody of dangerous drugs.

However, under the same proviso aforecited, non-compliance with the stipulated procedure,
under justifiable 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 officers.

In the cases at bar, PO1 Aguenido immediately searched the persons of appellants. From the right
pocket of appellant Tamafio, a big plastic sachet was recovered containing three (3) plastic sachets of
shabu with a total weight of 0.345 gram. On the other hand, PO I Aguenido recovered from the right
pocket of appellant Gulmatico twenty-four (24) sachets of shabu with a total weight of 8.695 grams and
two (2) small sachets of shabu. The seized items were brought to the police officers' office and were
accordingly marked by SP03 Calaor and turned over to PDEA Exhibit Custodian SP04 Gafate. The
following day, SP03 Calaor took the same items to the Iloilo City Prosecution Office where they were
all inventoried. Thereafter, SP03 Calaor submitted some of the items including the sachets of shabu to
the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. P/Insp. Ompoy, Forensic Chemical Officer, examined the
sachets and the contents were positive to the test for methampheatmine hydrochloride (shabu). During
the trial of the cases, P03 Gepaneca, P/Sr. Inspector Rapiz, PO1 Aguenido, SP03 Calaor, SP04 Gafate
and P/Insp. Ompoy testified for the prosecution. They properly identified the Chemistry Repmi and the
subject specimens when presented in court. From the foregoing, the prosecution was able to demonstrate
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs had not been compromised because it
established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized item from the time it was first discovered
until it was brought to the court for examination.

68
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOAN SONJACO
GR No. 196962, June 8, 2016
Justice Perez

TOPIC: Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165, mere possession constitutes animus possidendi

FACTS:

Based on information received on 6 August 2005, that appellant and a certain alias Kenkoy were
engaged in illegal drug trade in Barangay Olympia, Makati City, P/Supt. Valerio formed a buy-bust team
composed of POI Marmonejo, POI Mendoza, POI Randy Santos and SP03 Luisito Puno and two (2)
other anti-drug agents Eduardo Monteza and Herminia Facundo. After a surveillance of the area and
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) were made, P/Supt. Valerio briefed
the team. POI Marmonejo was designated as poseur-buyer and two (2) pieces of Pl00 bills marked with
the initials “MMV” were provided for the operation.
At five o’clock in the afternoon of that day, PO1 Marmonejo and the police asset, on board a
tricycle driven by PO1 Mendoza, proceeded to the target area. The other members of the buy-bust team
positioned themselves nearby. The police asset called appellant and told her that PO1 Marmonejo wanted
to buy shabu. Appellant asked POI Marmonejo how much, to which he replied, “katorse lang” or
P200.00 worth of shabu. Appellant then took out from her pocket two (2) transparent plastic sachets
containing a white crystalline substance, one of which she handed to POI Marmonejo in exchange for
two Pl00 bills. Appellant pocketed the other plastic sachet.
Upon consummation of the transaction, POI Marmonejo revealed that he was a police officer. He
immediately apprehended appellant, apprised her of her constitutional rights and asked her to empty her
pockets. POI Marmonejo recovered money in the amount of P540.00, a mobile phone, and three (3) other
plastic sachets containing white crystallinesubstance. POI Marmonejo marked the sachet sold to him as
“BONG” while the three (3) other sachets as “JOAN,” “JOAN l,” and JOAN 2.”

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165.

HELD:
YES.
Elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
1. Proof that the transaction or sale took place
2. The presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires
the consummation of the selling transaction which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from
the seller. The crime is already consummated once the police officer has gone through the operation as a
buyer whose offer was accepted by the accused, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the
former.
In this case, accused was apprehended, indicted and convicted by way of a valid buy-bust operation.
Elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
69
1. The accused is in possession of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug
2. Such possession is not authorized by law
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed said drug
Mere possession of drugs constitutes animus possidendi
The Court held that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge
or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation of
such possession. The burden of evidence to explain the absence of animus possidendi rests upon the
accused, and this, in the case at bar, the appellant failed to do.

70
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMMEL DIPUTADO
G.R. No. 213922, July 5, 2017
Justice TIjam

FACTS:

The accusatory portion of the Information alleges that accused, with deliberate intent and without
any justifiable motive, unlawfully and criminally sell to a PNP poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed
transparent plastic packet containing 3.957 grams of shabu, a dangerous drug, in consideration of
P24,000.00, without the authority to sell and distribute the same; that four (4) pieces of P20.00 marked
bills which form part of the buy-bust money were recovered from the possession of the herein accused.
Accused-appellant claims that the seized illegal drug was not marked immediately after his arrest at the
scene of the crime, neither was it marked at the house of the barangay captain where the seized illegal
drug and the buy-bust money were allegedly initially recorded/listed by PO1 Lucilo Mayores.

Challenged in this appeal is the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC of Iloilo
City, finding Rommel Diputado guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the integrity of the seized drug was established.

RULING:
No. In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, 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 duty of the prosecution is not merely to present in evidence the seized illegal drugs. It is essential
that the illegal drugs seized from the suspect is the very same substance offered in evidence in court as
the identity of the drug must be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make
a finding of guilt.

In the present case, PO1 Estares testified that he did not mark the seized item immediately after the arrest
of the accused-appellant at the place where the latter was arrested. It is also undisputed that PO1 Estares
did not mark the seized item in the house of the barangay captain, 100 meters away from the place of the
arrest, where the initial listing/recording of the seized item and the buy-bust money was conducted.

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.

71
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARMANDO MENDOZA
G.R. No. 220759, July 24, 2017
Justice Peralta

FACTS:

During a buy-bust operation, PO2 Ricote, together with the CI, met the appellant in a sari-sari
store and the CI introduced P02 Ricote as a buyer of marijuana. Appellant then told PO2 Ricote that the
price per teabag of marijuana was ₱50.00 to which the latter agreed to buy 4 teabags. Appellant then took
out from his right pocket the four teabags of suspected dried marijuana leaves and handed them to PO2
Ricote who, in tum, gave the marked two pieces of one hundred peso bills to the former. PO2 Ricote then
scratched his head as a pre-arranged signal, and PO3 Parena, who was inside a parked vehicle which was
three meters away from the sari-sari store, immediately run to help in arresting appellant.

Appellant denied the charges and claimed that he, together with friends, were along the road, repairing a
pedicab. When they all went to a sari-sari store to rest, they were joined by a certain Andy Makabenta.
He then saw the arrival of a white vehicle and a motorcycle with two people riding on it. A person
alighted from the motorcycle and held the wrist of Makabenta, while another police officer alighted from
the vehicle and pointed to him saying "you also apprehend that.”

The positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses prevail over appellant's defense of denial.

This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC finding appellant
guilty of selling marijuana

ISSUE:
Whether or not appellant is guilty of illegal sale of marijuana.

RULING:
Yes. In every prosecution for the illegal sale of marijuana, the following elements must be proved:
(1) the identities of the buyer and. the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor.34 What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of evidence of corpus delicti.

In this case, PO2 Ricote, the poseur-buyer, positively identified appellant as the seller of the four
teabags of suspected marijuana and to whom he handed the marked two pieces of one hundred peso bills
as payment therefor. The substance sold by appellant to PO2 Ricote was sent for analysis and upon the
examination, it showed that the four teabags yielded a positive result for marijuana, a dangerous drug.
The marijuana was presented to the court and was identified by PO2 Ricote to be the marijuana he bought
from appellant based on the markings he made thereon.

72
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs .WILLY YANG,
G.R. No. 148077, February 16, 2004

FACTS:

Appellant Willy Yang[5] (Yang Yung-hi) a.k.a. Alex Yu, Yang Xing Li, and Willy Yeung is a
Chinese citizen, having been born in Xianmen, China. He claims to be a legitimate businessman engaged
in the trading of dry goods and garments, in partnership with his Filipina common-law wife, one Gemma
Cabad.[6] Operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), however, believed that appellant was
involved in drug trafficking. An entrapment operation was laid for the suspected malefactors. It went
sour, the suspects escaped, and the NBI operatives were left holding 4.450 kilos of methamphetamine
hydrochloride[7] or shabu in street parlance.
In an information dated March 9, 2000, the Assistant City Prosecutor of Manila charged appellant
with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law (R.A. No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659), allegedly
committed as follows:

That on or about March 6, 2000, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused not having been
authorized by law to sell, dispense, delivered (sic), transport or distribute any regulated drug, did and
there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer of sale, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute
white crystalline substance contained in separate five (5) plastic bags weight four point four five zero
(4.450) kilograms of white crystalline substance known as SHABU containing methamphetamine
hydrochloride, which is a regulated drug.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of Importation and sale of prohibited drugs

HELD:
The assailed judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, finding appellant Willy Yang (Yang
Yung-hi) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article III, Section 15, in relation to Article IV,
Section 21 (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The penalty imposed on appellant is hereby REDUCED
TO RECLUSION PERPETUA. Further, appellant is ORDEJRED to pay a FINE of One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00), pursuant to said law plus, the costs.

73
 SALVADOR V. REBELLION, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010

FACTS:

This petition for review assails the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City finding petitioner guilty of violation
of Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 6425 (otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972, as amended). An Information was filed charging petitioner
Salvador V. Rebellion of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. On July 27, 2000, the Mayor’s Action
Command (MAC) team of Mandaluyong witnessed petitioner handing a piece of plastic sachet to his
companion Clarito Yanson. Suspecting that that the substance was “shabu,” team members PO3 Garcia
and PO3 Sotomayor alighted from their motorcycles and approached them. Clarito was not able to
completely get hold of the plastic sachet because of their arrival. Upon inquiry by PO3 Garcia what
petitioner was holding, the latter presented three strips of aluminum foil which the former confiscated.
There and then, petitioner and Clarito were apprehended and brought to the CID for investigation. After
laboratory examination, the white crystalline substance placed inside the plastic sachet was found
positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a regulated drug. Petitioner denied the charge
against him. On appeal, petitioner insisted that his warrantless arrest was unlawful since he was not
committing any crime when he was arrested. On September 26, 2006, the CA affirmed the judgment of
the RTC with modification. The appellate court sustained the validity of the warrantless arrest of
petitioner holding that the latter was caught by the MAC team in flagrante delicto or while he was in the
act of giving to Clarito a plastic sachet of shabu. Petitioner challenges the legality of his warrantless
arrest by asserting that at the time he was apprehended, he was not committing or attempting to commit
an offense. Petitioner argues that since his arrest was illegal, the eventual search on his person was also
unlawful. Thus, the illicit items confiscated from him are inadmissible in evidence for being violative of
his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizure.

ISSUE:
Whether this is a legitimate instance of a warrantless arrest, i.e. under circumstances sufficient
to engender a reasonable belief that some crime was being or about to be committed or had just been
committed.

HELD:
The Court finds the petitoner guilty of the crime charged. Petitioner’s claim that his warrantless
arrest is illegal lacks merit. Nowhere in the records did the Court find any objection interposed by
petitioner to the irregularity of his arrest prior to his arraignment. It has been consistently ruled that an
accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move
for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection
involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of
the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. In this
case, petitioner was duly arraigned, entered a negative plea and actively participated during the trial.

74
Thus, he is deemed to have waived any perceived defect in his arrest and effectively submitted himself
to the jurisdiction of the court trying his case. Also, a lawful arrest without a warrant may be made under
any of the following circumstances: Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful.
–
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence,
the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge

75