final spl-enriquez - ra 9165

8/18/2019 Final Spl-Enriquez - Ra 9165

1/40

First Division

G.R. No. 192432 June 23, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, P!"inti##$%&&e!!ee, vs.L%RR' (ENDO)% * ETR%D%, %++use$%&&e!!"nt.

-ER%(IN, J.

O((ENT/ The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensablein every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the dangerous drugsshould be established beyond doubt by showing that the dangerous drugs offered in court were the samesubstances bought during the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known under RA No. !"# asthe chain of custody, performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity ofthe evidence are removed.

$ % & ' ( ' ) N

-ER%(IN, J.:

The law enforcement agents who conduct buy-bust operations against persons suspected of drug trafficking

in violation of Republic Act No. !"# *RA No. !"#+, otherwise known as the &omprehensive $angerous$rugs Act of , should comply with the statutory requirements for preserving the chain of custody of theseied evidence. /ailing this, they are required to render sufficient reasons for their non-compliance duringthe trial0 otherwise, the presumption that they have regularly performed their official duties cannot obtain,and the persons they charge should be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The &ase

This appeal seeks the review and reversal of the decision promulgated on April ", ! in &A-1.R. &R-2.&. No. 3! entitled 4eople of the 4hilippines v. 5arry 6endoa y %strada, whereby the &ourt of Appeals*&A+ affirmed the 7udgment rendered on /ebruary 8, by the Regional Trial &ourt *RT&+, 9ranch ":, in9inangonan, Rial finding accused 5arry 6endoa y %strada guilty of a violation of (ection # and a violation

of (ection !!, Article '' of RA No. !"#.

Antecedents

The accusatory portion of the information charging the violation of (ection # of RA No. !"# reads;

That on or about the T) 5A?.

The accusatory portion of the information charging the violation of (ection !! of RA No. !"# alleges;

That, on or about the


2/40

sealed transparent plastic sachet, which substance was found positive to the test for 6ethylamphetaminehydrochloride also known as =shabu=, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

&)NTRAR> T) 5A?.

After the accused pleaded not guiltyto both informations, the (tate presented (r. 'nsp. @ivian &. (umobay,4)! Arnel $. $iocena and 'nsp. Alfredo $1 5im as its witnesses, while the witnesses for the $efense werethe accused himself, 5olita /lores and Analia Acapin.

The &A summaried the respective versions of the parties in the decision under review as follows;

%vidence for the 4rosecution

As culled from the herein assailed $ecision, the prosecution presented the following witnesses;

= 4olicemen Arnel $iocenaand Alfredo $1 5imtestified that, on (eptember , :, they receivedreports that an alias B5arryC was selling shabuat (t. &laire (treet, 9arangay &alumpang, 9inangonan, Rial.They organied a buy-bust operationwhere $iocena acted as the poseur buyer while 5im servedas back-up.They proceeded to the target area with their asset at around !;8# p.m. There $iocena and the assetwaited in the corner on their motorcycle while 5im and the other cops positioned themselves in theperimeter. The asset teted 5arry and they waited for him to arrive. 5ater,5arry arrived and told them,B4asensya na at ngayon lang dumating ang mga items.C 5arry then asked them how much they were buyingand $iocena told 4#. worth. 5arry took out two plastic sachets of shabuand gave it to $iocena whogave him a marked 4# bill *ehibit B$C+. $iocenalit the left signal light of his motorcycle to signal 5im andthe other cops that the deal was done. They then arrested 5arry who turned out to be the accused. Afterfrisking him, they recovered another sachet of shabufrom him. $iocena marked the first two B5%6-!CandB5%6-Cwhile the one taken after the frisk he marked B5%6-3C*T(N dated April 3 and Duly !:, beyond reasonable doubt of violating (ection # of R.A. No.!"# and sentence him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and topay a fine of 4#,.. ?e alsofind him 1E'5T>beyond reasonable doubt of violating (ection !! of R.A. No. !"# and illegally possessinga total of .! grams of 6ethylamphetamine 2ydrochloride or shabuand accordingly sentence him to suffer


3/40

an indeterminate penalty of ! years and ! day as minimum to !3 years as maimum and to pay a fineof 43,.

5et the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the 4hilippine $rug %nforcement Agency *4$%A+ forproper disposition. /urnish 4$%A with a copy of this $ecision per )&A &ircular No. :-:.

() )R$%R%$.

Dudgment of the &A

The accused appealed, contendingthat the identity of the corpus delictiand the fact of illegal sale hadnotbeen established beyond reasonable doubt0 that 4)! $iocenaCs testimony on the sale of the illegaldrugs and on the buy-bust operation had not been corroborated0 that the 4rosecution had patently failed toshow compliance with the requirements of (ection ! of RA No. !"#0 and that such failure to showcompliance had negated the presumption of regularity accorded to the apprehending police officers, andshould warrant his acquittal.

)n April ", !, the &A affirmed the conviction of the accused, holding and ruling thusly;

F'Gt is worthy of mention that prosecution of cases for violation of the $angerous $rugs Act arising frombuy-bust operations largely depend on the credibility of the police officers who conducted them. Enlessclear and convincing evidence is proffered showing that the members of the buy-bust team were driven byany improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their testimonies on the operation deservefull faith and credit.

2ere, accused-appellant failed to present any plausible reason or ill-motive on the part of the police officersto falsely impute to him such a serious and unfounded charge. ?e thus are obliged to accord great respectto and treat with finality the findings of the trial court on the prosecution witnessesC credibility. After all, it issettled doctrine that the trial courtCs evaluation of the credibility of a testimony is accorded the highestrespect, for the trial court has the distinct opportunity of directly observing the demeanor of a witness and,thus, to determine whether he is telling the truth.

Accused-appellantCs argument that the procedural requirements of (ection !, paragraph ! of Article'' ofRepublic Act No. !"# with respect to the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs were not compliedwith is equally bereft of merit.

@erily, failure of the police officers to strictly comply with the sub7ect procedure isnot fatal FtoG the integrityand the evidentiary value of the confiscatedHseied items having been properly preservedby theapprehending officerHteam. 'ts non-compliance will not render an accusedCs arrest illegal or itemsseiedHconfiscated from him inadmissible. /or, what is of utmost importance is the preservation of theintegrity and evidentiary value of the seied items, as the same would be utilied in the determination of the

guilt or innocence of the accused.

't thus behooves Es to believe that all the links in the chainI from the moment it was seied from theaccused-appellant, marked in evidence and submitted to the crime laboratory, up to the time it was offeredin evidence I were sufficiently establishedin this case.

?e are thus constrained to uphold accused-appellantCs conviction.


4/40

?2%R%/)R%, the instant appeal is $'(6'((%$. The assailed $ecision dated /ebruary 8, is A//'R6%$.

() )R$%R%$.

'ssue

'n this appeal, the accused presentsthe lone issue of whether the &A erred in finding him guilty beyond

reasonable doubt of the violations of (ection # and (ection !! of RA No. !"#.

Ruling of the &ourt

The appeal is meritorious.

!.

The (tate did not satisfactorilyeplain substantial lapses

committed by the buy-bust team in the chain of custody0

hence, the guilt of the accused for the crime charged

was not established beyond reasonable doubt

The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable in everyprosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. As such, the identityof the dangerous drugs should beestablished beyond doubt by showing thatthe dangerous drugs offered in court were the same substancesboughtduring the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known under RA No. !"# as the chain ofcustody, performs the function of ensuring thatunnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidenceare removed. As the &ourt has epounded in 4eople v. &atalan, the dangerous drugs are themselves thecorpus delicti0 hence;

To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the4rosecution must prove the corpus delicti.That proof is vital to a 7udgment of conviction. )n the other hand,the 4rosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of (ection # ofRepublic Act No. !"# when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gaps inthe chain of custody of the seied dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidencepresented in court.

As the means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody, (ection ! *!+ of RA No. !"# specifiesthat;

*!+ The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seiure

and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or thepersonHs from whom such items were confiscated andHor seied, or hisHher representative or counsel, arepresentative from the media and the $epartment of Dustice *$)D+, and any elected public official whoshall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

The following guideline in the 'mplementing Rules and Regulations *'RR+ of RA No. !"# complements(ection ! *!+ of RA No. !"#, to wit;

*a+ The apprehending officerHteam having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately afterseiure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same inthe presence of the accused orthe personHs from whom suchitems were confiscated andHor seied, or hisHher representative orcounsel, a


5/40

representative from the media and the $epartment of Dustice *$)D+, and any elected public official whoshall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; 4rovided, that the physicalinventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served0 or at thenearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officerHteam, whichever is practicable, incase of warrantless seiures0 4rovided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under

7ustifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seied items are properlypreserved by the apprehending officerHteam, shall not render void and invalid suchseiures of and custodyover said items0

9ased on the foregoing statutory rules, the manner and timing of the marking of the seied drugs or relateditems are crucial in proving the chain of custody. &ertainly, the marking after seiure by the arresting officer,being the starting point in the custodial link, should be made immediately upon the seiure, or, if that is notpossible, as close to the time and place of the seiure as practicable under the obtaining circumstances.This stricture is essential because the succeeding handlers of the contraband would use the markings astheir reference to the seiure. The marking further serves to separate the marked seied drugs fromall other evidence from the time of seiure from the accused until the drugs are disposed of upon the termination ofthe criminal proceedings. The deliberate taking of these identifying steps is statutorily aimed at obviatingswitching, =planting= or contamination of the evidence. 'ndeed, the preservation of the chain of custody vis-J-vis the contraband ensures the integrity of the evidence incriminating the accused, and relates to theelement of relevancy as one of the requisites for the admissibility of the evidence.

An eamination of the records reveals that the buy-bust team did not observe the statutory procedures onpreserving the chain of custody.

To start with, the (tate did not show the presence during the seiure and confiscation of the contraband,aswell as during the physical inventory and photographing of the contraband, ofthe representatives from themedia or the $epartment of Dustice, or of any elected public official. (uch presence was preciselynecessary to insulatethe apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy orirregularity.

't is notable that 4)! $iocena, although specifically recalling having marked the confiscated sachets ofshabuwith the initials of the accused immediately after the seiure, did not state, as the following ecerpts

from his testimony indicate, if he had madehis marking in the presence of the accused himself or of hisrepresentative, and in the presence of a representative from the media or the $epartment of Dustice, or anyelected public official, to wit;

K - ?hat did you do with the plasticsachets you bought or the plastic sachets handed to you and the otherplastic sachet 'nsp. 5im recovered from himL

A - ' put markings, 6aCam.

K - ?hat markings did you place on the plastic sachetsL

A - 5%6-!, 5%6- and 5%6-3.

K - And after marking those specimen, what did you do with themL

A - ?e brought them to the police station.

K - ?hat did the police station do with the plastic sachetsL

A - )ur investigator took pictures and brought them to the 4N4 &rime 5aboratory.


6/40

K - >ou said that you put markings on the specimen at the target areaL

A - >es, 6aCam.

K - >ou prepared the listing of all the specimen and marked money you recovered from the accusedL

A - No, 6aCam.

K - ?hen you returned to the police station that was the only time that you took pictures of the markedmoneyL

A - >es, 6aCam.

K - To whom did you turn it overL

A - To our investigator, 6aCam.

K - ?hat is the name of your investigatorL

A - 4)! $ennis 1orospe, 6aCam.

(imilarly, 4H'nsp. 5im did not mention in his testimony, the relevant portions of which are quoted hereunder,that a representative from the media or the $epartment of Dustice, or any elected public official was presentduring the seiure and marking of the sachets of shabu, as follows;

K - ?hat did you do with the sub7ect sale and the one you recovered from the accusedL

A - ' told 4)! $iocena to mark it, the three heat-sealed plastic sachets.

K - $o you know the markings placed on the plastic sachetsL

A - 5%6-!, 5%6- and 5%6-3.

K - And aside from marking the specimen, what did you do with themL

A - ' apprised the suspect of his rights, then right after that we went to the headquarters.

K - And after you brought the accused and the specimen to the headquarters, what did you do net with thespecimenL

A - ?e submitted them to the &rime 5aboratory for verification.

K - ?ho personally brought them to the &rime 5aboratoryL

A - 'f ' am not mistaken it was also 4)! $iocena and the other men.

K - ?here was )fficer $iocena when heput markings on the three plastic sachets you recoveredL

A - ?hen ' arrested the sub7ect, he alighted from the motorcycle and he helped me in arresting the accused,it was 7ust then beneath the 6eralco post.


7/40

K - And the markings represent the initials of the accusedL

A - ' donCt know, 6aCam, 5%6, maybe, 6aCam.

K - 9ut it was )fficer $iocena who put the markingsL

A - >es, 6aCam.

K - ?as there an inventory or list of the things you recovered from the accusedL

A - >es, 6aCam.

K - $id you ask the accused to sign that inventoryL

A - ' was not able, 6aCam.

The consequences of the failure ofthe arresting lawmen to comply with the requirements of (ection !*!+,supra, were dire as far as the 4rosecution was concerned. ?ithout the insulating presence of therepresentative from the media or the $epartment of Dustice, or any elected public official during the seiure

and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, =planting= or contamination of the evidence thathad tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. "8# *$angerous $rugs Act of !:+again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seiure and confiscation of thesachets of shabu that were evidence herein of thecorpus delicti, and thus adversely affected thetrustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 'ndeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses wouldhave preserved an unbroken chain of custody.

(econdly, the records nowhere indicated, contrary to the claim of 4H'nsp. 5im, that the buy-bust team, oranymember thereof, had conducted the physical inventory of the confiscated items. ?e know this because the(tateCs formal offer of evidence did not include such inventory, to wit;

4R)(%&ET)R ARA1)N%(;

>our 2onor, we formally offer %hibit =A=, the &hemistry Report No. $-!-:0 %hibit =9=, the request forlaboratory eamination from the 9inangonan 4olice (tation0 and %hibit =&=, the sub7ect specimen. This is toprove that after request made by the 9inangonan 4olice (tation, eamined by the forensic chemical officer,and after eamination proved positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride. These ehibits areoffered as part of the testimony of the forensic chemist. %hibit =$=, the buy bust money, the 4#. billused during the operation0 %hibit =$-!= is the marking placed by 4olice )fficer $iocena. This is to provethat this is the ero copy of the original buy bust money used during the buy bust operation conductedagainst the accused. %hibit =%= is the sworn statement of 4olice )fficer $iocena. This is to prove all thefacts alleged in the information and as part of the testimony of the said police officer. %hibit =/= is the swornstatement of 4H'nsp. Alfredo 5im to prove all the facts alleged in the information and as part of the testimonyof said witness. That would be all for our formal offer of evidence. ?ithout the inventory having beenmade

by the seiing lawmen, it became doubtful whether any shabu had been seied from the accused at all.

And, thirdly, although 4)! $iocena asserted that photographs of the confiscated items and the markedmoney were taken at the police station, it still behooved him to 7ustify why the photographs of the seiedshabuwas not taken immediately upon the seiure,and at the place of seiure. The (tate did not eplain thislapse. The pictorial evidence of the latter kind would have more firmly established the identity of theseiedshabufor purposes of preserving the chain of custody.

The last paragraph of (ection !*!+ of the 'RR of RA No. !"# epressly provides a saving mechanismtothe effect that not every case of non-compliance with the statutory requirements for the physical inventoryand photograph of the dangerous drugs being made =in the presence of the accused or the personHs from


8/40

whom such items were confiscated andHor seied, or hisHher representative or counsel, a representativefrom the media and the $epartment of Dustice *$)D+,and any elected public official who shall be required tosign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof= would pre7udice the (tateCs case against theaccused. 9ut in order for that saving mechanism to apply, and thus save the day for the (tateCs cause, the4rosecution must have to recognie first the lapse or lapses, and then credibly eplain them.

't appears that the application ofthe saving mechanism in this case was not warranted. The 4rosecution didnotconcede that the lawmen had not complied with the requirement for =the presence of the accused or the

personHs from whom such items were confiscated andHor seied, or hisHher representative or counsel, arepresentative from the media and the $epartment of Dustice *$)D+, and any elected public official whoshall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.= Also, the 4rosecution didnot tender any 7ustification why no representatives from the media or the $epartment of Dustice, or anyelected public official had been present during the seiure and confiscation of the shabu. The omissions,particularly the failure to 7ustify on the part of the lawmen, were strange and improbable, particularlybecause the records indicated that the lawmen had sufficient time and the opportunity to prepare for theproper conductof the buy-bust operation against the accused due to such operation having come in theaftermath of a successful test buy.

Anent the test buy, 4)! $iocena mentioned the same in his sinumpaang salaysay, thusly;

Na itong sinasabi ng aming asset na alyas =5arry= ay matagal na naming minamanmanan at sakatunayan ay nagsagawa na kami ng Test 9uy noong 2ulyo !, : at kami ay nakabili sa kanya ng isangpirasong maliit na plastic na may lamang shabu at amin itong ipinasuri sa R'MA5 4N4 &rime 5aboratory)ffice na nagbigay ng positibong resulta sa pinagbabawal na droga at siya ay di namin kaagad nahulisapagkat siya ay huminto pansamantala sa pagbebenta ng iligal na droga.

(imilarly, 4H'nsp. 5im adverted to the test buy in his own sinumpaang salaysayas follows;

(apagkat ako ay bago lamang dito sa himpilan ng 9inangonan, napagalaman ko mula saaking mgakasamahan na itong sinasabi ng aming asset na alyas =5arry= ay matagal na nilang minamanmanan at sakatunayan aynagsagawa ng Test 9uy noong 2ulyo !, : laban dito kay alyas =5arry= at ang nabilingpinaghihinalaang shabu ay ipinasuri sa R'MA5 4N4 &rime 5aboratory )ffice na nagbigay ng positibong

resulta sa pinagbabawal na droga na kaya lamang hindi nahuhuli itong si alyas =5arry= sa dahilang siya athuminto pansamantala sa pagbebenta ng iligal na droga.

4H'nsp. 5im reiterated his story on direct eamination, vi;

K - And what report, if any, was madeby that asset aside from there was an ongoing sale of drugs in&alumpangL

A - That there was an ongoing sale byalias 5arry na matagal na nilang minamatyagan, in fact theyhavealready testbuy noong mga nakaraang taon, eh, wala pa ho ako noon.

'n all, the buy-bust team had about 8< days I the period intervening between Duly !, :, when the testbuy was conducted, and August


9/40

lapses committed by the buy-bust team could not be fairly ignored. At the very least, they raised areasonable doubt on his guilt. =A reasonable doubt of guilt,= according toEnited (tates v. >outhsey;

is a doubt growing reasonably out of evidence or the lack of it. 't is not a captious doubt0 not a doubtengendered merely by sympathy for the unfortunate position of the defendant, or a dislike to accept theresponsibility of convicting a fellowman. 'f, having weighed the evidence on both sides, you reach theconclusion that the defendant is guilty, to that degree of certainty as would lead you toact on the faith of it inthe most important and crucial affairs of your life, you may properly convict him. 4roof beyond reasonable

doubt is notproof to a mathematical demonstration. 't is not proof beyond the possibility of mistake.

Thus, the accused was entitled to beacquitted and freed, for, as we pointed out in 4eople v. 9elocura;

in all criminal prosecutions, the 4rosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accusedbeyond reasonable doubt. 'n discharging this burden, the 4rosecutionCs duty is to prove each and everyelement of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any othercrime necessarily included therein. The 4rosecution must further prove the participation of the accused inthe commission of the offense. 'n doing all these, the 4rosecution must rely on the strength of its ownevidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden ofproof placed on the 4rosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that noless thanthe &onstitution has guaranteed. &onversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of

proof, that he must then be acquitted and set free should the 4rosecution not overcome the presumption ofinnocence in his favor. 'n other words, the weakness of the defense put up bythe accused isinconsequential in the proceedings for as long as the 4rosecution has not discharged its burden of proof inestablishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as the malefactorresponsible for it.

.

The &A and the RT& erred in relying

on the presumption of regularity in the

performance of duty of the arresting officers

%ven if the foregoing conclusion already renders any further discussion of the applicability of thepresumption of regularity in favor of the members of the buy-bust team superfluous, we need to dwell a biton the matter if only to remind the lower courtsnot to give too much primacy to the presumption of regularityin the performance of official duty at the epense of the higher and stronger presumption of innocence infavor of the accused in a prosecution for violation of the &omprehensive $rugs Act of .

?e have usually presumed the regularity of performance of their official duties in favor of the members ofbuy-bust teams enforcing our laws against the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. (uch presumption is basedon three fundamental reasons, namely; first, innocence, and not wrong-doing, is to be presumed0 second,

an official oath will not be violated0 and, third, a republican form of government cannot survive long unless alimit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each governmentaldepartment or agent by every other such department or agent, at least to the etent of suchpresumption. 9ut the presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence of irregularity or of any failure toperform a duty. Dudicial reliance on the presumption despite any hint of irregularity in the proceduresundertaken by the agents of the law will thus be fundamentally unsound because such hint is itselfaffirmative proof of irregularity.

The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands only when no reason eists in therecords by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance thepresumption of regularity will not be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.


10/40

)therwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent.Trial courts are instructed to apply this differentiation, and to always bear in mind the following reminderissued in 4eople v. &atalan;

?e remind the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could notprevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the accused. )therwise, the constitutionalguarantee of the accused being presumed innocent would be held sut ordinate to a mere rule of evidenceallocating the burden of evidence. ?here, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even

overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty could notbe a factor to ad7udge the accused guilty of the crime charged.

6oreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly presumed in favor of thepolicemen because the records were replete with indicia of their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed factlike the regularity of performance by a police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, notplucked out from thin air. To say it differently, it is the established basic fact that triggers the presumed factof regular performance. ?here there is any hint of irregularity committed by the police officers in arrestingthe accused and thereafter, several of which we have earlier noted, there can be no presumption ofregularity of performance in their favor.

?2%R%/)R%, the &ourt R%@%R(%( and (%T( A('$% the decision promulgated on April ", ! by the

&ourt of Appeals in &A-1.R. &R-2.&. No. 3! entitled 4eople of the 4hilippines v. 5arry 6endoa y%strada0 A&KE'T( 5ARR> 6%N$)MA y %(TRA$A on the ground of reasonable doubt0 and )R$%R( hisimmediate release from detention at the National 4enitentiary, unless there are other lawful causeswarranting his continued detention.

The $irector of 9ureau of &orrections is directed to forthwith implement this decision and to report to this&ourt his action hereon within ten *!+ days from receipt.

No pronouncement on costs of suit.

() )R$%R%$.

FIRT DIIION


11/40

G.R No. 11441 Nove5er 14, 200

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, appellee,vs.L%RR' LOPE), appellant.

%RPIO, J./

O((ENT/ *'nconsistencies on the eistence of a pre-arranged signal and the markings on the buy-bustmoney pertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual buy-bust operation itself - that crucialmoment when the appellant was caught selling shabu - which might warrant a reversal of appellantsconviction. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a validmeans of arresting drug offenders. &onsidering the legality of appellants warrantless arrest, the subsequentwarrantless search resulting in the recovery of mari7uana found in appellants body is also valid.+

T6e "se

This is an appeal from the # (eptember : $ecision of the &ourt of Appeals in &A-1.R. &R-2& No.3!. The &ourt of Appeals affirmed the ! $ecember # Doint $ecision of the Regional Trial &ourt,9ranch ", 9aler, Aurora, in &riminal &ase Nos. 3!


12/40

members of the buy-bust team strategically stationed themselves near the place of the transaction. Ataround !!;# a.m., the appellant, driving his tricycle, arrived and the confidential agent waved at him tostop. 4)! 6iranda and the confidential agent approached appellant, they talked for a moment, and theechange took place. The agent handed the marked money to appellant, who simultaneously handed thesachet of shabu. 'mmediately thereafter, the agent handed the shabu to 4)! 6iranda who then held theappellant. The other members of the buy-bust team rushed to the crime scene and arrested appellant. Afterapprising appellant of the 6iranda Rights, 4)! (onny 1uman *4)! 1uman+ searched appellants bodywhich yielded dried mari7uana leaves wrapped in two 6arlboro cigarette packs and one cigarette foil.

Appellant, on the other hand, denied the charges and insisted that he was framed-up. Appellant claimedthat at around !!;# in the morning of ! November 3, he was driving his tricycle to bring his passengers,namely Teresita /ernando and Raymund 4utol, to the cemetery. Epon reaching $ithas 2ardware, two menin civilian clothes blocked their way and identified themselves as policemen. Thereafter, appellant wassuddenly and forcibly pulled down from the tricycle and handcuffed. After the policemen frisked appellant,they eclaimed =4ositive= showing a sachet. Then, he was arrested and brought to the police station wherehe was interrogated and searched again.

The dispositive portion of the ! $ecember # Doint $ecision of the Regional Trial &ourt, 9ranch ",9aler, Aurora, reads;

?2%R%/)R%, premises considered, the &ourt hereby renders 7udgment as follows;

!. /inding 5arry 5ope y 4arinia 1E'5T> beyond reasonable doubt of @iolation of (ection #, Article '' of R.A. !"# for the sale of ." gram of shabu and hereby sentences him to sufferthe penalty of 5'/% '64R'()N6%NT and a fine of /ive 2undred Thousand 4esos*4#,.+0

. /inding 5arry 5ope y 4arinia 1E'5T> beyond reasonable doubt of @iolation of (ection !!, Article '' of R.A. !"# for possession of ". grams of dried mari7uana leaves and herebysentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of /ourteen *!8+ years and a fine ofThree 2undred Thousand 4esos *43,.+.

The confiscated shabu and dried mari7uana leaves are hereby ordered to be turned over to the)ffice of the 4rovincial 4rosecutor of Aurora, which, in turn, shall coordinate with the propergovernment agency for the proper disposition and destruction of the same.

() )R$%R%$.

)n appeal, appellant pointed out that there were inconsistencies on the following matters; *!+ eistence of apre-arranged signal0 and the *+ recollection by 4)! 6iranda of the markings on the buy-bust money.

Appellant also argued that the subsequent warrantless search and seiure was illegal because he wasnever caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. 2ence, the mari7uana recovered from him was inadmissible.

T6e ourt o# %&&e"!s7 Ru!in8

'n a $ecision dated # (eptember :, the &ourt of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision findingappellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. The appellate court found that 4)!6iranda satisfactorily eplained his answer to the question regarding the pre-arranged signal. The appellatecourt also ruled that failure to recall the markings on the buy-bust money was probably due to the length oftime between the date of the incident and the date of 4)! 6irandas testimony. At any rate, the markings onthe marked money are immaterial because the presentation of the marked money is not even necessary forthe successful prosecution of the offenses charged. The &ourt of Appeals also re7ected appellants claim offrame-up considering that there was no evidence of any ulterior motive for the police officers to falselycharge appellant of the offenses. 't appears that the frame-up theory was a mere afterthought.


13/40

)n the warrantless search and seiure, the &ourt of Appeals held that it is valid having been made after alawful warrantless arrest, citing (ection !, Rule !" of the Rules of &ourt.

2ence, this appeal.

T6e Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of *!+ (ection

#, Article '' of RA !"# for the sale of ." gram of shabu0 and *+ (ection !!, Article '' of RA !"# for thepossession of ". grams of dried mari7uana leaves.

T6e Ru!in8 o# t6e ourt

The appeal lacks merit.

(ections # and !!, Article '' of RA !"# read;

(%&. #. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation ofDangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life

imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from /ive hundred thousand pesos *4#,.+ to Tenmillion pesos *4!,,.+ shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authoried by law,shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit ortransport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of thequantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

(%&. !!. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fineranging from /ive hundred thousand pesos *4#,.+ to Ten million pesos *4!,,.+shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authoried by law, shall possess any dangerousdrug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof;

*3+ 'mprisonment of twelve *!+ years and one *!+ day to twenty *+ years and a fine ranging fromThree hundred thousand pesos *43,.+ to /our hundred thousand pesos *48,.+, ifthe quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five *#+ grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaineor cocaine hydrochloride, mari7uana resin or mari7uana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or=shabu=, or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, 6$6A or =ecstasy=, 46A, T6A, 5($,129, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without havingany therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements0 or lessthan three hundred *3+ grams of mari7uana.

The &ourt sustains the finding of the lower courts that the prosecution sufficiently established appellantsguilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of (ections # and !!, Article '' of RA !"#. The prosecution

proved that a consummated sale of shabu transpired between the buy-bust team which included theconfidential agent, on one hand, and the appellant on the other. 4)! Rafael $uaso, 4)! 1uman, and 4)!6iranda, who were members of the buy-bust team, testified that appellant soldshabu to the confidentialagent, who simultaneously gave the marked money to appellant. The prosecution also established that thepolice officers recovered mari7uana after searching appellants body. The sub7ect drugs were also proven tobe methylamphetamine hydrochloride and mari7uana, as evidenced by /ield Test Report No. A44)-()1-!!!-3-! and the confirmatory tests subsequently conducted by /orensic &hemical )fficer, 4H'nsp.$ivina $ion of the Nueva %ci7a &rime 5aboratory, as evidenced by her &hemistry Report No. $-


14/40

1enerally, the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the &ourt of Appeals, are conclusive andbinding on this &ourt. 'n the present case, appellant gravely failed to show that the trial court overlooked ormisapprehended any fact or circumstance of weight and substance to warrant a deviation from this rule.

/irst, the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of 4)! 6iranda refer to trivial or minor matters, which donot impair the essential integrity of the prosecutions evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesshonesty. 'nconsistencies on the eistence of a pre-arranged signal and the markings on the buy-bust moneypertain to peripheral matters and do not refer to the actual buy-bust operation itself - that crucial moment

when the appellant was caught selling shabu - which might warrant a reversal of appellantsconviction. /urther, the &ourt sustains the trial court in giving credence to the testimonies of theprosecutions witnesses because the trial court is in a better position to evaluate the witnesses deportmentduring the trial. 9esides, the employment of a pre-arranged signal, or the lack of it, is not indispensable in abuy-bust operation. Also, the non-presentation of the buy-bust money is not fatal to the successfulprosecution of a drug case.

(econd, appellant did not substantiate his defense of frame-up. 2e did not present evidence that theprosecution witnesses had motive to falsely charge him. Neither did appellant prove that the police officersdid not perform their duties regularly. As the &ourt of Appeals held, the frame-up theory was a mereafterthought.

Third, (ection ! of Rule !" epressly provides that =FaG person lawfully arrested may be searched fordangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without asearch warrant.= 'n this case, the arresting officers were 7ustified in arresting appellant as he had 7ustcommitted a crime when he sold shabu to the confidential agent. A buy-bust operation is a form ofentrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to be a valid means of arresting drug offenders.&onsidering the legality of appellants warrantless arrest, the subsequent warrantless search resulting in therecovery of mari7uana found in appellants body is also valid.

&onsidering that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of (ection #, Article '' of RA !"#,the &ourt of Appeals correctly affirmed the trial courts imposition of life imprisonment and a fineof 4#, in &riminal &ase No. 3!


15/40

G.R. No. 132 %u8ust 2:, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, Appellee,vs.JOELITO N%%R% * D%H%', Appellant.

%RPIO (OR%LE, J.

O((ENT/ *The 4$%A shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources ordangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instrumentsHparaphernaliaandHor laboratory equipment so confiscated, seied and or surrendered, for proper disposition. 1iven thepurpose of conducting a laboratory eamination of the suspicious items seied O to determine if indeed theycontain, in this case, shabu, a more strict standard is imposed by law to ascertain that they are thesameitems seied or are not substituted or adulterated.+

$ % & ' ( ' ) N

Doselito =Do7o= Nasara *appellant+ was convicted by the Regional Trial &ourt *RT&+ of Kueon &ity, 9ranch!3 for violation of (ection #, Article '', of Republic Act No. !"#, *R.A. No. !"#+ or the $angerous $rugs

Act of .

The accusatory portion of the 'nformation against appellant, together with =another person,= reads;

That on or about the !"th day of 6arch 8 in Kueon &ity, 4hilippines, the said accused conspiring andconfederating with another person whose thru *sic+ name, identity and whereabouts has not as yetascertained and mutually helping each other not being authoried by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transportor distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, wilfully *sic+, and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver,transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, ero point ero three *.3+ grams of whitecrystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

&)NTRAR> T) 5A?. *underscoring supplied+

/rom the evidence for the prosecution, the following version is culled;

'n the morning of 6arch !", 8, a confidential informant reported at 4olice (tation ", 9atasan 2ills,Kueon &ity the selling of illegal drugs along (an 6iguel (treet, 4ayatas, Kueon &ity.

)n the instruction of 4H(upt. Raymond %squivel, (4) Rodelio $ionco, 4) Rolando 5ope *4) 5ope+,(4)8 &onstancio 4itaga and (4)8 Reynaldo Angeles conducted a buy-bust operation in the area. (4)$ionco, who was designated as poseur-buyer, was given two ! peso bills and instructed to scratch hishead to signal the consummation of the sale.

Epon arriving at (an 6iguel (treet at !;3 A.6., also on 6arch !", 8, (4) $ionco and the informantapproached appellant who was standing, together with a certain !une, outside a small store. The informant

thereupon introduced to !une and appellant (4) $ionco as a prospective buyer. As appellant asked howmuch was being bought, (4) $ionco handed the two bills to appellant who, together with Pune, wentinside a house ad7acent to the store. ?hen the two returned, !une handed a small plastic sachet containingwhite crystalline substances to (4) $ionco who, after eamining it, scratched his head.

As the back-up police officers were closing in, (4) $ionco introduced himself as a police officer toappellant and!une who shoved him and both ran away. The rest of the team gave a chase and caughtappellant but not !une.

The police officers recovered the money from the right pocket of appellantCs short pants. )n inspection ofthe house, (4) $ionco found on top of a television set two plastic sachets containing substances similar


16/40

to those inside the sachet handed to him by Pune. These two sachets were marked by 4) 5ope with hisinitials =R5=.

The buy-bust team thereafter brought appellant to the police station, together with the seied items whichwere turned over to the $esk )fficer. A memorandum was then prepared by 4H'nsp. Abelardo Aquino,addressed to the &hief of the &entral 4olice $istrict, 4hysical (cience $ivision, requesting for the conductof laboratory eamination on the seied items to determine the presence of dangerous drugs and theirweight, which memorandum was delivered by 4) 5ope and received at :; p.m. of 6arch !", 8 by

=Nard= Dabonillo.

Epon receipt of the sachets, %ngr. 5eonard Dabonillo, /orensic Analyst of the &entral 4olice $istrict &rime5aboratory )ffice, conducted a laboratory eamination thereof and recorded his findings in &hemistryReport No. $--8 that each of the three heat-sealed plastic sachets contained .3 grams and waspositive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

Appellant, denying the accusation, claimed that he was framed-up. 2is version goes; )n 6arch !", 8,while he was resting inside the house of one Nelson 9alawis in (an 6iguel, he heardsome "alabugan which prompted him to go outside where he saw three armed men, one of whom pointed agun at him. ?hen he asked why, the man shouted to his companions =Damputin yanQ,= and he was in factapprehended and brought to a waiting vehicle.

'nside the vehicle were two men who were also accosted and who informed him that the police officersacquired from them .# grams of shabu, 4!!,. in cash, and a cellular phone.

/inding for the prosecution, the trial court convicted appellant, disposing as follows;

%ORDINGL', 7udgment is hereby rendered finding the accused JOELITO ;JOJO; (%%R% #sic$ 'D%H%', G


17/40

't bears noting that the 'nformation is for selling =.3 gram= of shabu, and that the two heat-sealed plasticsachets each also containing the same .3 gram of shabu allegedly confiscated from the house werepresented to corroborate the prosecutionCs evidence.

(ec. ! of R.A. No !"# provides;

(ection !. &ustody and $isposition of &onfiscated, (eied, andHor (urrendered $angerous $rugs, 4lant(ources of $angerous $rugs, &ontrolled 4recursors and %ssential &hemicals, 'nstrumentsH4araphernalia

andHor 5aboratory %quipment. I The 4$%A shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,plant sources or dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well asinstrumentsHparaphernalia andHor laboratory equipment so confiscated, seied and or surrendered, forproper disposition in the following manner;

*!+ The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seiureand confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or thepersonsHs from whom such items were confiscated andHor seied, or hisHher representative or counsel, arepresentative from the media and the $epartment of Dustice *$)D+, and any elected public official whoshall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof0 *emphasis andunderscoring supplied+

The issue, in the event of non-compliance with above-quoted provision of R.A. No. !"#, does not pertain toadmissibility of evidence, but to weight-evidentiary merit or probative value thereof.

People v. Dela Cru% enlightens;

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an ehibitbe preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponentclaims it to be. 't would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item waspicked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the ehibitwould describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in thewitnessC possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to thenet link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there hadbeen no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to havepossession of the same. *emphasis and underscoring supplied+

'n the present case, the records do not show that the procedural requirements of (ection ! with respect tothe custody and disposition of confiscated drugs were followed. No physical inventory and photographswere taken. )n that score alone, the case for the prosecution fails, absent a plausible eplanation to 7ustifyfailure to comply with the requirements.

4arenthetically, there is even no showing that coordination with 4$%A prior to and after the conduct of thebuy-bust operation was made, in violation of (ection


18/40

The police officers-members of the buy-bust team cannot bank on the presumption of regularity in theperformance of their duties. The presumption has been destroyed upon their un7ustified failure to conform tothe procedural requirements mentioned above.

The prosecution having failed to discharge its onus of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt ofappellant, his eoneration is in order.

?2%R%/)R%, the appeal is 1RANT%$. The assailed decision of the appellate court is R%@%R(%$ and

(%T A('$%. Appellant, Doselito =Do7o= Nasara y $ahay, is A&KE'T%$ for failure of the prosecution to provehis guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

5et a copy of this $ecision be furnished the $irector of the 9ureau of &orrections who is )R$%R%$ torelease appellant, unless he is being lawfully held for another offense, and to inform this &ourt of actiontaken within ten *!+ days from notice hereof.

() )R$%R%$.

THIRD DIIION


19/40

G.R. No. 1=4:9 e&te5er 1, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, Appellee,vs.NIT% E


20/40

3 addressed to the &hief of the %astern 4olice $istrict &rime 5aboratory )ffice, requesting the conductof laboratory eamination on the seied substance-filled sachet to determine the presence of dangerousdrugs and their weight;

!. Respectfully forwarded to your good office herewithHattached *sic+ submitted specimen forlaboratory eamination to wit;

NATER% )/ )//%N(% @')5AT')N )/ RA !"#

NA6% )/ (E(4%&T N'TA %E1%N') > 4%D%R,#: years old, widow,Res. At @icper &ompound,6alinao, 4asig &ity

$.T.4.). )n or about beyond reasonabledoubt of the crime of violation of (ec. #, Art. '' of R.A. !"#, otherwise known as the &omprehensive$angerous $rugs Act of and imposes upon her the penalty of 5'/% '64R'()N6%NT and to pay a fineof 4hp#,.


21/40

() )R$%R%$. *underscoring supplied+

9y $ecision of (eptember !", our 2onor, ' think the answer is not responsive to the question. ?e moved *sic+ to strike that outand the witness to answer the question.

&ourt; Answer the question.

?itness;


22/40

A; Not yet maCam.

Atty. Ronatay;

K; 2ow many times have you been engaged in buy-bust operationL

A; 6ore or less ten maCam.

K; And in those ten cases, was there ever an occasion that the sub7ect specimen, there was apicture taken on that sub7ect specimenL

A; None, maCam.

K; Are you also aware 6r. witness that under the dangerous drugs law, it is standard operatingprocedure that in cases of operation specifically in a buy-bust operation, there has also be *sic+ apresence of the mediaL

A; ' do not know, maCam.

K; 'n this case was there a media present at the time of the operationL

A; None maCam.

K; Are you also aware that under the dangerous drugs law, it is required that there has to becoordination with the 5ocal 9rgy.L

A; None maCam. *emphasis and underscoring supplied+

/ailing to comply with the provision of (ection of R.A. No. !"# does not necessarily doom the case forthe prosecution, however. 4eople v. 4ringas enlightens;

Non-compliance by the apprehendingHbuy-bust team with (ection ! is not fatal as long as there is 7ustifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscatedHseieditems, are properly preserved by the apprehending officerHteam. 'ts non-compliance will not render anaccuseds arrest illegal or the items seiedHconfiscated from him inadmissible. ?hat is of utmost importanceis the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seied items, as the same would beutilied in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. *citation omitted, emphasis, italics andunderscoring supplied+

The &ourtCs pronouncement in 4ringas is based on the provision of (ection !*a+ of the 'mplementing Rulesand Regulations of R.A. No. !"# reading;

4rovided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under 7ustifiable grounds, as long as

the integrity and evidentiary value of the seied items are properly preserved by the apprehendingofficerHteam, shall not render void and invalid such seiures of and custody over said items0 *emphasis andunderscoring supplied+

&learly, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabuwas preserved.

As reflected in the above-quoted 6emorandum of 4H(r. 'nsp. &hief @illaruel, the time of operation was =onor about


23/40

minutes after the seiure, given that appellant was after his arrest first brought to a hospital for physicalcheck-up.

$oubt is thus engendered on whether the ob7ect evidence sub7ected to laboratory eamination andpresented in court is the same as that allegedly =sold= by appellant. 'n fine, the prosecution failed to provethe integrity and evidentiary value of the .3 gram specimen.

4arenthetically, unlike in 4ringas, the defense in the present case questioned early on, during the cross

eamination of 4)! 6ariano, the failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the inventory andphotographing requirements of (ection ! of R.A. No. !"#. And the defense raised it again during the offer of evidence by the prosecution, thus;

Atty. Ronatay;

%h. & - we ob7ect to its admission as well as the purpose for which they are being offered for being plantedevidence, your honor. *underscoring supplied+

The prosecution having failed to discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyondreasonable doubt, the burden of the evidence did not shift to the defense to thus leave it unnecessary topass upon the defense evidence even if it were considered weak. AppellantCs acquittal based on reasonabledoubt is then in order.

?2%R%/)R%, the 4etition is 1RANT%$. The assailed decision is R%@%R(%$ and (%T A('$%. Appellant,Nita %ugenio y 4e7er, is A&KE'T%$ for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonabledoubt.

5et a copy of this $ecision be furnished the $irector of the 9ureau of &orrections for ?omen, 6andaluyong&ity who is directed to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless she is being lawfully held foranother cause, and to inform this &ourt of action taken within ten *!+ days from notice.

() )R$%R%$.

FIRT DIIION

G.R. No. 192> Ju!* 2=, 2010


24/40

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, 4laintiff-Appellee,vs.ELI)%-ETH (%RELINO * RE'E, Accused-Appellant.

EL%O, JR., J.

O((ENT/ *The failure of the law enforcers to comply strictly with (ec. ! of the 'mplementing Rules ofRA !"# is not fatal. 't does not render appellantCs arrest illegal nor the evidence adduced against him

inadmissible. ?hat is essential is =the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seieditems, as the same would be utilied in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.+

$ % & ' ( ' ) N

This is an appeal from the Dune , $ecision of the &ourt of Appeals *&A+ in &A-1.R. &R-2.&. No.3!#3 entitled 4eople of the 4hilippines v. %liabeth 6arcelino y Reyes, which affirmed the $ecision in&riminal &ase Nos. 38


25/40

@ersion of the 4rosecution

At the trial, the prosecution presented (4)! 6arciano $ela &ru as its sole witness.

(4)! $ela &ru, a police officer stationed at the 9alagtas 4olice (tation in 9ulacan, was part of a team thatconducted a test-buy on )ctober 3, to verify a report of accused-appellant %liabeth engaging inillegal drug activities.

?hen the test-buy confirmed that %liabeth was indeed selling illegal drugs, a team was formed to conducta buy-bust operation. (4)! $ela &ru was designated as poseur-buyer. 2e placed his initials =6$&= on afive hundred peso bill to be used as boodle money.

)n )ctober 3!, , the buy-bust team headed for 4. &astro (t. 9urol !st, 9alagtas, 9ulacan at aroundhalf past seven in the evening. (4)! $ela &ru and his asset went to meet %liabeth and asked tobuy shabu worth five hundred pesos *4h4 #+. )nce %liabeth had handed the shabu to (4)! $ela &ru,he gave the pre-arranged signal, prompting (4)3 /eli $ela &ru to approach them. (4)3 $ela &rurecovered the marked 4h4 # bill and another sachet of suspected shabu from %liabeth. (he was thenapprised of her constitutional rights. (4)! $ela &ru subsequently marked the sachet that was sold to himas =6$&-!= and the sachet found on the person of %liabeth as =6$&-.=

A request was later submitted to the crime laboratory for a laboratory eamination of the seiedsubstances.&hemistry Report No. $-"


26/40

The dispositive portion of the RT& $ecision reads;

?2%R%/)R%, finding the accused 1E'5T> beyond reasonable doubt, accused %5'MA9%T2 6AR&%5'N)y R%>%( is hereby &)N@'&T%$;

FAG in &riminal &ase No. 38

''

?2%T2%R T2% &)ERT )/ A44%A5( %RR%$ 'N RE5'N1 T2AT T2% 'NT%1R'T> AN$ '$%NT'T> )/T2% (2A9E ?A( 4R%(%R@%$

The Ruling of this &ourt

Accused-appellant %liabeth reiterates that two test-buys were conducted before the actual buy-bustoperation was launched. (he thus contends that after the two test-buys, the police officers certainly had


27/40

sufficient time to secure both a search warrant and a warrant of arrest but failed to do so. (he argues that abuy-bust operation should never be used as a cover for an illegal warrantless search and arrest.

(he also imputes grave doubts on whether (4)! $ela &ru observed the requirements of RA !"# oninventory and photographing of the illegal substance, arguing that said police officer did not state where andwhen he marked the sachets of shabu.

The )(1, on the other hand, argues that no search warrant and warrant of arrest were needed, a buy-bust

operation being recognied as a valid form of entrapment. &iting 7urisprudence, the )(1 claims that it isridiculous for the buy-bust team to first obtain a search warrant when a crime is committed before theireyes.

As to the other contention of %liabeth, the )(1 refutes this by saying that the identity of the seiedsubstance was adequately established by the prosecution, as this was properly marked and its paper trailascertained, from the request for laboratory eamination to the physical science report on the illegalsubstance and the actual presentation in court.

?e affirm %liabethCs conviction.

The appellate court correctly ruled that %liabeth cannot question her arrest for the first time on appeal. Andeven if we were to allow her to raise such issue, her appeal must still fail.

(earch warrant and warrant of arrest not needed

'n 4eople v. @illamin, involving an accused arrested after he sold drugs during a buy-bust operation, the&ourt ruled that it was a circumstance where a warrantless arrest is 7ustified under Rule !!3, (ec. #*a+ ofthe Rules of &ourt. The same ruling applies to the instant case. ?hen carried out with due regard forconstitutional and legal safeguards, it is a 7udicially sanctioned method of apprehending those involved inillegal drug activities. 't is a valid form of entrapment, as the idea to commit a crime comes not from thepolice officers but from the accused himself. The accused is caught in the act and must be apprehended onthe spot. /rom the very nature of a buy-bust operation, the absence of a warrant does not make the arrestillegal.

The illegal drug seied was not the =fruit of the poisonous tree= as the defense would like this &ourt tobelieve. The seiure made by the buy-bust team falls under a search incidental to a lawful arrest under Rule!", (ec. !3 of the Rules of &ourt, which pertinently provides;

A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been usedor constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.

(ince the buy-bust operation was established as legitimate, it follows that the search was also valid, and awarrant was likewise not needed to conduct it.

&hain of custody

The prosecutionCs failure to submit in evidence the required physical inventory and photograph of theevidence confiscated will not result in accused-appellantCs acquittal of the crimes charged. Non-compliancewith the provisions of RA !"# on the custody and disposition of dangerous drugs is not necessarily fatal tothe prosecutionCs case. Neither will it render the arrest of an accused illegal nor the items seied from herinadmissible.

?e discussed in 4eople v. 4agkalinawan both what the law provides and the level of compliance it requires;

(ec. ! of the 'mplementing Rules and Regulations of RA !"# provides;


28/40

(%&T')N !. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or a!oratory E"uipment. I The 4$%A shall take charge and havecustody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essentialchemicals, as well as instrumentsHparaphernalia andHor laboratory equipment so confiscated, seied andHorsurrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner;

*a+ The apprehending officerHteam having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after

seiure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused orthe personHs from whom such items were confiscated andHor seied, or hisHher representative or counsel, arepresentative from the media and the $epartment of Dustice *$)D+, and any elected public official whoshall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof0 Pro#ided , t6"t t6e&6*si+"! inventor* "n &6oto8r"&6 s6"!! 5e +onu+te "t t6e &!"+e ?6ere t6e se"r+6 ?"rr"nt isserve@ or "t t6e ne"rest &o!i+e st"tion or "t t6e ne"rest o##i+e o# t6e "&&re6enin8 o##i+erAte",?6i+6ever is &r"+ti+"5!e, in +"se o# ?"rr"nt!ess seiBures0 Pro#ided, further, t6"t non$+o&!i"n+e?it6 t6ese reCuireents uner usti#i"5!e 8rouns, "s !on8 "s t6e inte8rit* "n evienti"r* v"!ue o#t6e seiBe ites "re &ro&er!* &reserve 5* t6e "&&re6enin8 o##i+erAte", s6"!! not rener voi "ninv"!i su+6 seiBures o# "n +usto* over s"i ites. *%mphasis supplied.+(avvphi(

As can be gleaned from the language of (ec. ! of the 'mplementing Rules, it is clear that the failure of the

law enforcers to comply strictly with it is not fatal. 't does not render appellantCs arrest illegal nor theevidence adduced against him inadmissible. ?hat is essential is =the preservation of the integrity and theevidentiary value of the seied items, as the same would be utilied in the determination of the guilt orinnocence of the accused.=

2ere, the chain of custody was established through the following links; *!+ (4)! $ela &ru marked theseied sachet with =6$&-!= for the sachet that was the sub7ect of the buy-bust, and =6$&-= for the sachetfound on accused-appellantCs person0 *+ a request for laboratory eamination of the seied items =6$&-!=and =6$&-= was signed by 4olice (enior 'nspector Arthur /eli Asis0 *3+ the request and the marked itemsseied were received by the 9ulacan 4rovincial &rime 5aboratory0 *8+ &hemistry Report No. $-"


29/40

and a fine ranging from /ive hundred thousand pesos *4#,.+ to Ten million pesos *4!,,.+shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authoried by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense,deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including anyand all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in anyof such transactions.

&riminal &ase No. 38-6-

RA !"# penalies possession of dangerous drugs as follows;

(ection !!. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine rangingfrom /ive hundred thousand pesos *4#,.+ to Ten million pesos *4!,,.+ shall be imposedupon any person, who, unless authoried by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the followingquantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof;

*#+ # grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or =shabu=0 otherwise, if the quantity involved isless than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows;

3+ 'mprisonment of twelve *!+ years and one *!+ day to twenty *+ years and a fine ranging from Threehundred thousand pesos *43,.+ to /our hundred thousand pesos *48,.+, if the quantities ofdangerous drugs are less than five *#+ grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,mari7uana resin or mari7uana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or =shabu=, or other dangerousdrugs such as, but not limited to, 6$6A or =ecstasy=, 46A, T6A, 5($, 129, and those similarly designedor newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantitypossessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements0 or less than three hundred *3+ grams of mari7uana.

/inding the sentence handed by the lower court in both criminal cases to be within the range provided under

RA !"#, we affirm accused-appellant %liabethCs sentence for both charges.

?2%R%/)R%, the appeal is DENIED. The $ecision of the &ourt of Appeals in &A-1.R. &R-2.&. No. 3!#3finding accused-appellant guilty of violation of (ecs. # and !! of Article '', RA !"# is %FFIR(ED I$ %&%& .

() )R$%R%$.

FIRT DIIION

G.R. No. 1>4=2 June 19, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE Appellee,vs.

'ONNE EILL% %-%LLERO, Appellant.


30/40

ORON%, J.:

O((ENT/ *Testimonies of police officers who conduct buy-bust operations are generally accorded fullfaith and credit as they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. This presumptioncan be overturned only if the accused is able to prove that the officers acted with improper motives.+

R % ( ) 5 E T ' ) N

)n $ecember , , appellant >vonne (evilla y &aballero was charged with violation of (ection #, Article''' of RA !"# in the Regional Trial &ourt *RT&+ of Kueon &ity, 9ranch !3 under the following 'nformation;

That on or about the 8th day of $ecember in Kueon &ity, 4hilippines, FappellantG, not beingauthoried by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug did, then and there,willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction,. gram of white crystalline substance containing FmethamphetamineG hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Appellant pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.

$uring trial, the prosecution presented (4) 5evi (evilla of 4olice (tation 3 in 9arrio Talipapa, Kueon &ityas its principal witness. 2e testified that, on $ecember 8, , he received information about the illegaldrug trade at 1ana &ompound in Enang (igaw, 9alintawak, Kueon &ity. 2e immediately relayed thisinformation to the station chief and a buy-bust operation was thereupon organied. (4) (evilla likewisestated that he participated in the said operation as poseur buyer.

Epon reaching appellantCs residence at around :;!# p.m., the informant knocked on appellantCs door andintroduced him *(4) (evilla+, saying = Ate )bonne "ung may item "a ra*, itong "aibigan "o, gustoumiscor.= After the short conversation, appellant handed (4) (evilla a sachet containing a whitecrystalline substance while the latter gave the former a 4! marked bill. Thereafter, (4) (evilla signaledhis companions that the transaction had been consummated.

Appellant was promptly arrested and immediately brought to the station. (4) (evilla surrendered thesachet and the 4! marked bill to the desk officer. (ubsequently, a forensic chemist of the 4hilippineNational 4olice confirmed that the white crystalline substance in the sachet was methampethaminehydrochloride or =shabu.=

/or her defense, appellant insisted she was innocent. (he claimed that she and her daughter were about tohave dinner when several policemen barged into her house and arrested her. The arrest was allegedlybecause of her refusal to cooperate with them to entrap =Nene,= a known drug pusher in the area. lavvphi(

'n a decision dated $ecember , 8, the RT& noted that, despite her assertion that her daughter waspresent during her arrest, none of her family members corroborated her testimony. 't pointed out;

?ith the scenario painted by the FappellantG in her testimony, it is clear that her daughter, who was already

8-years-old, was present when the police barged into their house and the latter was able to witness howthe FappellantG was forcibly arrested by the police. Assuming that this is true, FappellantCsG daughter, hadbehaved very unusual, indifferent and unnatural for she did not even eert any form of resistance if she is of the belief that her mother is innocent of the crime being attributed by the police. U 2uman instinct andnature dictate that a person would, without hesitation, instantly lift a finger to someone whose life and limb isendangered for no 7ustifiable reason, especially if that person who needed help is no less than his or hermother, although he or she believes otherwise.

Thus, the RT& found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of (ection #, Article ''' of RA!"# and sentenced her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 4#,.


31/40

The &ourt of Appeals, on intermediate appellate review, affirmed the decision of the RT& in toto.

?e dismiss the appeal.

'n cases involving the sale of illegal drugs, the prosecution must prove *!+ the identity of the seller, theob7ect and the consideration and *+ the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. 2ere, (4)(evilla testified that appellant handed him a sachet containing metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu inechange for 4! during a buy bust operation.(a*phil

Testimonies of police officers who conduct buy-bust operations are generally accorded full faith and creditas they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. This presumption can beoverturned only if the accused is able to prove that the officers acted with improper motives.

'nasmuch as appellant failed to show that (4) (evilla and his companions had improper motives tocharge her, we uphold the legality of the buy-bust operation. 't is well-settled that a buy-bust operation*which is a form of entrapment+ is a valid means of arresting violators of RA !"#.!3

HEREFORE, the Dune ", " decision of the &ourt of Appeals in &A-1.R. &R-2& No. 8 ishereby%FFIR(ED. Appellant >vonne (evilla y &aballero is found guilty of violating (ection #, Article ''' ofRepublic Act No. !"# and is accordingly sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 4#,.

The Regional Trial &ourt of Kueon &ity, 9ranch !3 is ordered to transfer the custody of the . gram ofmethamphetamine hydrochloride to the 4hilippine $rug %nforcement Agency for proper disposition.

O ORDERED.

EOND DIIION

G.R. No. 1>993> Ju!* 1>, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, Appellee, vs.GER%LD LI-RE%, Appellant.

%RPIO (OR%LE, J.

O((ENT/ *?ho entrusted the substance to him and requested him to submit it for eaminationL /orhow long was he in possession of the evidence before he turned it over to the 4N4 &rime 5aboratoryL ?ho

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_174862_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jun2009/gr_174862_2009.html#fnt13


32/40

else had access to the specimen from the time it was allegedly taken from appellants when arrestedL Thesequestions should be answered satisfactorily to determine whether the integrity of the evidence wascompromised in any way. )therwise, the prosecution cannot maintain that it was able to prove the guilt ofthe appellants beyond reasonable doubt.+

$ % & ' ( ' ) N

1erald 5ibrea *appellant+ was charged and convicted by the Regional Trial &ourt *RT&+ of 5ipa &ity,

9atangas of violation of (ection #, Article '' of Republic Act *RA+ No. !"#.

The 'nformation against appellant reads;

That on or about the th day of )ctober 3 at about :;3 oCclock FsicG in the evening at 9asang 2amog,9arangay !, 5ipa &ity, 4hilippines, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and therewillfully, unlawfully sell, deliver, dispose or give away to a police officerHinformer-poseur buyer, .8gramsHs of 6ethamphetamine 2ydrochloride locally known as =shabu=, which is a dangerous drug,contained in one *!+ plastic sachetHs. *Enderscoring supplied+

At the pre-trial, appellant admitted, among other things, the =authenticity and due eecution of &hemistryReport No. $-88-3 prepared by 4H(r. 'nsp. 5orna R. Tria, but denFiedG that the specimen sub7ect matter

thereof came from FhimG.=

/rom the testimonies of prosecution witnesses 4&hief 'nsp. $ante Novicio *Novicio+ and (4)! Aleander>ema *>ema+ of the Anti-'llegal $rugs (pecial )peration Task /orce *Task /orce+ of the 5ipa &ity 4olice(tation, the following version is gathered;

)n receipt from an =asset-informant= by Novicio of information that appellant was actively pushing drugs invarious areas of 5ipa &ity, surveillance and a test-buy was conducted which validated theinformation.(avvphi(

A buy-bust operation was soon conducted on )ctober , 3 at around :;3 in the evening at =a squattersarea= in 9asang 2amog, 9arangay !, 5ipa &ity, about 3 meters from the police station. Novicio, >ema, and4)! &leofe 4era *&leofe+, in the company of the informant who was given two 4! bills on which weremarked =$4N= beside their serial numbers, repaired to 9asang 2amog. As the informant approachedappellant who was standing by a store, Novicio, >ema, and &leofe positioned themselves at a spot seven toten meters away from appellant.

After the informant spoke to appellant to whom he gave the marked bills, appellant handed him a smallplastic sachet which he scrutinied and brought to the members of the buy-bust team. (oon after >emareceived the sachet and smelled it to be shabu, he, Novicio, and &leofe approached appellant, introducedthemselves as members of the police force, informed him of his rights, arrested him, and conducted a bodysearch which yielded the two marked 4! bills.

Appellant was thereupon brought to the police station where >ema marked the sachet with =A&>=*representing his initials+ on one side and =1&5= *representing the initials of appellant+ on the other. &leofeat once prepared the 'nventory of &onfiscatedH(eied 'tems *'nventory+ on which appellant refused to affihis signature and a request for laboratory eamination.

Epon the other hand, appellant gave his version as follows;

After :; in the evening of )ctober , 3, while he was at the store of his aunt %ster &alingasan *%ster+waiting for the pancit which he had ordered, three police officers arrived, arrested him, and forcibly took himto the police headquarters where he was detained. No test-buy or buy-bust operation took place. 2e sawthe 'nventory and the plastic sachet for the first time during the trial.


33/40

%ster corroborated appellantCs testimony, adding that after he was arrested, she fetched his mother andaccompanied her to the police headquarters where appellant was detained.

9ranch ! of the 5ipa &ity RT& convicted appellant as charged, disposing as follows;

?2%R%/)R%, the &ourt finds the accused, 1%RA5$ 5'9R%A y &A6'TAN, guilty beyond reasonabledoubt, as principal by direct participation, of the crime of @iolation FofG (ection #, !st paragraph, Article '' ofRepublic Act No. !"#, otherwise known as the &omprehensive $angerous $rugs Act of and

sentences him to suffer the penalty of 5'/% '64R'()N6%NT and pay a fine of 4#,. and the costs.

The .8 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride sub7ect of this case is forfeited in favor of thegovernment and ordered turned over to the &hief of 4olice of 5ipa &ity for proper disposal in accordancewith law.

Also, let the corresponding commitment order be issued for the transfer of detention of the accused to the9ureau of &orrection, 6untinlupa &ity, 6etro 6anila.

1iven this !8th day of (eptember, # at 5ipa &ity.

9efore the &ourt of Appeals, appellant faulted the trial court

'

'N &)N@'&T'N1 F2'6G /)R @')5AT')N )/ (%&T')N #, ART'&5% '' )/ R.A. !"#N)T?'T2(TAN$'N1 T2% N)N-4R%(%NTAT')N )/ T2% 4)(%ER-9E>%R.

''

'N 1'@'N1 &R%$%N&% T) T2% T%(T'6)N'%( )/ T2% 4R)(%&ET')N 4)5'&% ?'TN%((%(N)T?'T2(TAN$'N1 T2% 'RR%1E5AR'T'%( 'N T2% 4%R/)R6AN&% )/ T2%'R $ET'%(.

'''

'N /'N$'N1 F2'6G 1E'5T> )/ T2% &R'6% &2AR1%$ $%(4'T% T2% /A'5ER% )/ T2%4R)(%&ET')N T) 4R)@% 2'( 1E'5T 9%>)N$ R%A()NA95% $)E9T. *Enderscoring supplied+

9y $ecision of Dune , :, the &ourt of Appeals affirmed the trial courtCs decision, hence, the presentappeal. 9oth appellant and the (olicitor 1eneral adopted their respective arguments in the 9riefs they hadfiled before the appellate court.

Appellant assails, among other things, the failure of the buy-bust team to photograph the allegedlyconfiscated sachet and to have a representative of the media as well as of the $epartment of Dustice *$)D+sign the 'nventory of &onfiscatedH(eied 'tems, as required under (ection ! of RA !"#.

Non-compliance by the apprehendingHbuy-bust team with (ection ! of R.A. No. !"# is not fatal as long asthere is 7ustifiable ground therefor and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscatedHseied itemsare properly preserved by the apprehending officerHteam.

The prosecution 7ustifies the failure of the buy-bust team to have the confiscated sachet photographed withthe non-availability of a photographer. And it claims that no $)D, as well as media representative, arrived atthe time and after the buy-bust operation took place. ?ithout passing on the merits of this claim, the &ourtfinds that the integrity, as well as the evidentiary value of the confiscated item, was not shown to have beenpreserved.


34/40

?hile >ema claimed to have marked the plastic sachet at the police station, what was done to it afterwardsremains uneplained.

And there is no showing that the substance allegedly confiscated was the same substance which wassub7ected to eamination. As earlier mentioned, while during pre-trial appellant admitted the authenticity anddue eecution of the laboratory report, he denied that the specimen sub7ect thereof was taken from him.

6ore. The request for forensic eamination, together with the specimen, was delivered to the laboratory by

a certain (4)8 $.R. 6ercado *6ercado+, who was not part of the buy-bust team, at !!;!# in the morning of)ctober !, 3, a day after the conduct of the alleged buy-bust operation. There is no showing, however,under what circumstances 6ercado, who did not take the witness stand, came into possession of thespecimen. Apropos is the &ourtCs ruling in 4eople v. )ng;

FTGhe 6emorandum-Request for 5aboratory %amination . . . indicates that a certain (4)8 &astrosubmitted the specimen for eamination. 2owever, the rest of the records of the case failed to show the roleof (4)8 &astro in the buy-bust operation, if any.

(ince (4)8 &astro appears not to be part of the buy-bust team, how and when did he get hold of thespecimen eamined by 4olice 'nspector %ustaquioL ?ho entrusted the substance to him and requested himto submit it for eaminationL /or how long was he in possession of the evidence before he turned it over to

the 4N4 &rime 5aboratoryL ?ho else had access to the specimen from the time it was allegedly taken fromappellants when arrestedL These questions should be answered satisfactorily to determine whether theintegrity of the evidence was compromised in any way. )therwise, the prosecution cannot maintain that itwas able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. *%mphasis and underscoringsupplied+

)n this score alone, the &ourt finds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant. 2is acquittal is thus in order.

?2%R%/)R%, the $ecision of the &ourt of Appeals dated Dune , : is R%@%R(%$ and (%T A('$%. Appellant, 1%RA5$ 5'9R%A, is A&KE'TT%$ of the crime charged and is ordered released from custody,unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

5et a copy of this $ecision be furnished the $irector of the 9ureau of &orrections, 6untinlupa &ity, who is$'R%&T%$ to implement it immediately and to inform this &ourt within five *#+ days of action taken.

() )R$%R%$.

EOND DIIION

G.R. No. 1>>41 %u8ust , 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, 4laintiff-Appellee,vs.PETER (. %(PO(%NE "n EDITH (ENDO)%, Accused-Appellants.

(ENDO)%, J.:

O((ENT/ * A successful prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs must establish the followingelements; *!+ identities of the buyer and seller, the ob7ect, and the consideration0 and *+ the delivery of thething sold and the payment therefor. 'n the prosecution for illegal sale of shabu, what is material is the proof


35/40


36/40

A@6-46&-3HH3, and the 4!-peso bill with A@6. 4)! 6apula and 4) 5aro also saw several drugparaphernalia on the table beside where petitioner was seated. There were four *8+ aluminum foil strips,three *3+ improvised burners, three *3+ heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, one *!+ improvised plasticpipe, one *!+ improvised tooter, two *+ disposable lighters colored yellow, one *!+ improvised burner, andone *!+ improvised bamboo sealer.

Thereafter, the police officers brought 4ete and the petitioner to their office, together with the seied items -plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, marked money and drug paraphernalia. 't was only

then that the police officers learned that 4ete was 4eter 6. &ampomanes. Epon arriving at their office, 4)!6apula and 4) 5aro turned over the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and the drugparaphernalia to their investigator for the preparation of the request for laboratory eamination. Then, themarked pieces of evidence were brought by 4)! 6apula to the %astern 4olice $istrict *%4$+ &rime5aboratory for chemical analysis.

4olice 'nspector 5ourdelia 6. 1ural, a forensic chemist, conducted a qualitative eamination of thespecimen, which tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. (he thenprepared and issued &hemistry Report No. $-#-3% containing her findings.

Accused &ampomanes and petitioner denied the accusations against them. &ampomanes claimed that on6arch , 3, he was sleeping in his bedroom at No. !: /rancisco (t., 9agong 'log, 4asig &ity when five

*#+ police officers, all wearing civilian clothes, entered his two-storey house0 that two of the police officers,4)3 5una and 4) 5aro, entered his room, forced him out of his bed, handcuffed him, and brought him tothe living room where his boarder, petitioner %dith 6endoa, was already seated0 that while they were in theliving room, 4)! %speras and 4)! 6apula searched his room and petitionerCs room located on the secondfloor of his house0 that the police officers did not ask permission before they made the search0 and that thepolice officers brought them to the police station without informing them of the charges.

Accused &ampomanes also denied that he sold shabu to 4)! 6apula or 4) 5aro. 2e did admit, however,that he used and sold shabu to his peers0 that he sourced his shabu from another drug pusher in a placecalled the barracks0 that police officers asked him to accompany them to the barracks but the drug pusherwas not there so they went back to the headquarters0 and that his caretaker told him that the police officerswere asking for five thousand *4#,.+ pesos.

4etitioner %dith 6endoa corroborated the testimony of &ampomanes. (he claimed that on 6arch , 3at around 8;!# oCclock in the afternoon, she was in her boarding house owned by &ampomanes0 that shewas cleaning the house when five *#+ male persons entered the house0 that four *8+ of them went straight tothe room of &ampomanes0 that when she asked them what they needed, they told her to sit on the sofa andkeep quiet or they would slap her0 that after the four men had searched the room of &ampomanes, theyalso searched her room and the other rooms rented by the other boarders0 that the police officers forcedthem to go to the police station for investigation0 that she was not hurt or in7ured by the policemen0 and thatshe did not file any criminal complaint against them.

)n /ebruary , #, the RT& rendered a decision convicting both accused &ampomanes and thepetitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads;

?2%R%/)R%, premises considered, 7udgment is hereby rendered, as follows;

'n &riminal &ase No. !##-$ both accused 4eter &ampomanes and %dith 6endoa are hereby foundguilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of violation of (ection #, Article '', Republic Act !"# *illegalsale of shabu+ and are hereby sentenced to 5'/% '64R'()N6%NT and to solidarily pay a /'N% of /ive2undred Thousand 4esos *424#,.+.

'n &riminal &ase No. !#"-$, accused 4eter &ampomanes is hereby found 1E'5T> beyond reasonabledoubt of the offense of @iolation of (ection !, Article '', Republic Act !"# *illegal possession of drug


37/40

paraphernalia+ and is hereby sentenced to (i 6onths and )ne *!+ $ay to /our *8+ >ears and a /ine of TenThousand 4esos *424!,.+

&onsidering the penalty imposed by the &ourt, the immediate commitment of accused 4e

final spl-enriquez - ra 9165

Documents