Updates on Jurisprudence (Spl)

CRIMINAL LAW

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS BY: Roland Ysrael R. Atienza

Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

1

CRIMINAL LAW

2012-2013 SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON SPECIAL PENAL LAWS By: Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza Professor of law; Lecturer; Bar reviewer; Legal Officer

OMBUDSMAN; POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTIES. The power of the Ombudsman to determine and impose administrative liability is not merely recommendatory but actually mandatory. The Ombudsman’s power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault in the exercise of its administrative disciplinary authority is well founded in the Constitution and RA 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989. Gemma P. Cabalit v. COA-Region VII/Filadelfo S. Apit v. COA, Legal and Adjudication, Region VII/Leonardo G. Olaivar, et al, v. Hon. Primo C. Miro, et al, G.R. Nos. 180326/180341/180342, 17 January 2012.

BP 22; GRAVAMEN OF OFFENSE. The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the

2

making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against public order. Edgardo Medalla v. Resurreccion D. Laxa, G.R. No. 193362, 18 January 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; BUY-BUST; PRIOR SURVEILLANCE. Prior surveillance not a necessity for the validity of the buy-bust operation. In People v. Padua, the Supreme Court ruled that a prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. For as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance. People of the Philippines v. Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso @ “Bong Pango,” G.R. No. 186392, 18 January 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY. A review of the records establishes that the procedure laid down by RA 9165 and its IRR was not followed in this case. Several lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are readily apparent. To start with, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the buy-bust team did not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime and in the presence of Relato and witnesses. Thirdly, although there was testimony about the marking of the seized items being made at the police station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence of Relato or his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no representative of the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official attended the taking of the physical inventory and to sign the inventory. The marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, because succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items will use the markings as reference. It further Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

serves to segregate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar and related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, “planting,” or contamination of evidence. It is crucial in ensuring the integrity of the chain of custody. People of the Philippines v. Darwin Relato y Ajero, G.R. No. 173794, 18 January 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY. Chain of Custody is defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: “Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.” The procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team underscored the uncertainty about the identity and integrity of the shabu admitted in evidence against the accused. They highlighted the failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody, by which the incriminating evidence would have been authenticated. An unavoidable consequence of the non-establishment of the chain of custody was the serious doubt on whether the shabu presented as evidence was really the shabu supposedly seized from Relato. People of the Philippines v. Darwin Relato y Ajero, G.R. No. 173794, 18 January 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. The crime of conspiracy to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist. Simply put, the

CRIMINAL LAW

3

circumstance of conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165. The fact that the information for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 that was filed against the petitioner and Saunar alleged that they “conspired and helped each other” is immaterial since conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of dangerous drugs. Reynaldo Posiquit v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 193943, 16 January 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; INTENT TO POSSESS. In a prosecution for possession of illegal substances, proof of animus possidendi on the part of the accused is indispensable. But animus possidendi is a state of mind, and is thus to be determined on a case-to-case basis by taking into consideration the prior and contemporaneous acts of the accused, as well as the surrounding circumstances. It may and must be inferred usually from the attendant events in each particular case. Upon the State’s presenting to the trial court of the facts and circumstances from which to infer the existence of animus possidendi, it becomes incumbent upon the Defense to rebut the inference with evidence that the accused did not exercise power and control of the illicit thing in question, and did not intend to do so. For that purpose, a mere unfounded assertion of the accused that he did not know that he had possession of the illegal drug is insufficient, and animus possidendi is then presumed to exist on his part because he was thereby shown to have performed an act that the law prohibited and punished. People of the Philippines v. Geron Delos Santos y Maristela, G.R. No. 170839, 18 January 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; INTENT TO POSSESS. It cannot be disputed that Delos Santos had animus possidendi. His conduct prior to and following his apprehension evinced his guilty knowledge of the contents of the gift-wrapped box as shabu. His uncorroborated story of having been summoned to help in the cleaning of Unit 706 was a Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

sham excuse that he peddled to explain his presence in the Somerset Condominium. His explanation was useless, however, because he was no longer employed as a janitor of the Somerset Condominium at the time of his arrest after being already terminated from employment. Correlatively, his willingness to run for Wilson the errand of delivering the gift-wrapped box to the unnamed person near the Jollibee Vito Cruz extension branch proved that he was serving as a courier of shabu. Besides, his guilty knowledge was confirmed by his unreasonable refusal to exit from Unit 706 despite the demand of the NBI agents to do so, and by his stealthy transfer to the adjoining Unit 705. Had he been truly innocent, he would have voluntarily cooperated with the NBI agents instead of attempting to escape from them. People of the Philippines v. Geron Delos Santos y Maristela, G.R. No. 170839, 18 January 2012.

FENCING; ELEMENTS. The elements of fencing are 1) a robbery or theft has been committed; 2) the accused, who took no part in the robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article or object taken during that robbery or theft; (3) the accused knew or should have known that the thing was derived from that crime; and (4) he intends by the deal he makes to gain for himself or for another. Here, someone carnapped Mantequilla’s Nissan Safari on May 25, 1998. Two years later in December 2000, Dimat sold it to Delgado for P850,000.00. Dimat knew that the Nissan Safari he bought from Tolentino was not properly documented. He said that Tolentino showed him its old certificate of registration and official receipt. But this certainly could not be true because, the vehicle having been carnapped, Tolentino had no documents to show. That Tolentino was unable to make good on his promise to produce new documents undoubtedly confirmed to Dimat that the Nissan Safari came from an illicit source. Still, Dimat sold the same to Sonia

CRIMINAL LAW

4

Delgado who apparently made no effort to check the papers covering her purchase. Hence, the decision of the Court of Appeals finding Dimat guilty of violation of the Anti-Fencing Law is affirmed. Mel Dimat v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 181184, 25 January 2012.

SANDIGANBAYAN; JURISDICTION. Petitioners maintain that the jurisdictional facts necessary to acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter in CC No. 0033-A have yet to be established. Petitioners claim that the Republic failed to prove the ill-gotten nature of the sequestered coconut farmers’ UCPB shares. Accordingly, the controversy is removed from the subject matter jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and necessarily any decision rendered on the merits, such as PSJ-A and PSJ-F, is void. The Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the subdivided amended complaints. Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law. The question on whether a given suit comes within the pale of a statutory conferment is determined by the allegations in the complaint regardless of whether or not the plaintiff will be entitled at the end to recover upon all or some of the claims asserted therein. Judging from the allegations of the defendants’ illegal acts thereat made, it is fairly obvious that both CC Nos. 0033-A and CC 0033-F partake, in the context of EOs 1, 2 and 14, series of 1986, the nature of ill-gotten wealth suits. Both deal with the recovery of sequestered shares, property or business enterprises claimed, as alleged in the corresponding basic complaints, to be ill-gotten assets of President Marcos, his cronies and nominees and acquired by taking undue advantage of relationships or influence and/or through or as a result of improper use, conversion or diversion of government funds or property. Recovery of these assets — determined as prima facie illgotten — falls within the unquestionable jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Philippine Coconut Producers Federation Inc. (COCOFED), et al v. Republic of the Philippines, respondent; Wigberto Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

E. Tanada, et al, intervenors/Danilo S. Ursua v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177857-58 and G.R. No. 178193, 24 January 2012.

SANDIGANBAYAN; JURISDICTION. PD 1606, as amended by RA 7975 and EO 14, Series of 1986, vests the Sandiganbayan with original jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases instituted pursuant to and in connection with EOs 1, 2, 14 and 14-A. Correlatively, the PCGG Rules and Regulations defines the term “Ill-Gotten Wealth” as “any asset, property, business enterprise or material possession of persons within the purview of [EOs] 1 and 2, acquired by them directly, or indirectly thru dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates.” The Republic’s averments in the amended complaints, particularly those detailing the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants, sufficiently reveal that the subject matter thereof comprises the recovery by the Government of ill-gotten wealth acquired by then President Marcos, his cronies or their associates and dummies through the unlawful, improper utilization or diversion of coconut levy funds aided by PD 755 and other sister decrees. There was no actual need for Republic, as plaintiff a quo, to adduce evidence to show that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaints as it leaned on the averments in the initiatory pleadings to make visible the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over the ill-gotten wealth complaints. A perusal of the allegations easily reveals the sufficiency of the statement of matters disclosing the claim of the government against the coco levy funds and the assets acquired directly or indirectly through said funds as ill-gotten wealth. Moreover, the Court finds no rule that directs the plaintiff to first prove the subject matter jurisdiction of the court before which the complaint is filed. Rather, such burden falls on the shoulders of defendant in the hearing of a motion to dismiss anchored on said ground or a

CRIMINAL LAW

5

preliminary hearing thereon when such ground is alleged in the answer. Philippine Coconut Producers Federation Inc. (COCOFED), et al v. Republic of the Philippines, respondent; Wigberto E. Tanada, et al, intervenors/Danilo S. Ursua v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 177857-58 and G.R. No. 178193, 24 January 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; BURDEN OF PROOF. In the prosecution of possession of illegal drugs, the prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs in the place under his control and dominion and the character of the drugs. With the prosecution’s failure to prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner’s control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law’s own starting perspective on the status of the accused – in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Ruben Castillo @ Boy Castillo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185128, 30 January 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS. 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. Ruben Castillo @ Boy Castillo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 185128, 30 January 2012.

Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

DANGEROUS DRUGS; ALIBI AND FRAME-UP. Alibi and frame up are weak forms of defense usually resorted to in drug-related cases. The Court is careful in appreciating them and giving them probable value because this type of defense is easy to concoct. Also, the Court does realize the disastrous consequences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well-being of society, if the courts, solely on the basis of the police officers’ alleged rotten reputation, accept in every instance this form of defense which can be so easily fabricated. It is precisely for this reason that the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed exists. Bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by SPO4 Taruc of Arriola as the one who sold them the shabu. For the defense’s position to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. This, unfortunately, Arriola failed to supply. What she made was a bare allegation of frame-up without presenting any credible witness that would support her claim. Furthermore, she failed to show any motive on the part of the arresting officers to implicate her in a crime she claimed she did not commit. People of the Philippines v. Flordeliza Arriola y De Lara, G.R. No. 187736, 8 February 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL SALE; ELEMENTS. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. What is material in prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. In this case, the requisites for illegal sale of shabu were competently and convincingly proven by the Prosecution. PO2 Tayag, as the poseur-buyer, attested that Bautista

CRIMINAL LAW

6

sold shabu to him during a legitimate buy-bust operation. According to Forensic Chemist Arturo, the substance subject of the transaction, which weighed 0.05 gram, was examined and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. PO2 Caragdag declared that he recovered the buy-bust money from Bautista’s hand right after the sale. Further, the Prosecution later presented as evidence both the sachet of shabu subject of the sale and the buy-bust money used in the buy-bust operation. People of the Philippines v. Cesar Bautista y Santos, G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL POSSESSION; ELEMENTS. For illegal possession of a dangerous drug, like shabu, the elements are: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The elements of illegal possession of a dangerous drug were similarly competently and convincingly established by the Prosecution. SPO1 Ybañez stated that upon seeing the pre-arranged signal given by PO2 Tayag, he and the other members of the team proceeded to arrest Bautista; and that he frisked Bautista and then recovered six other plastic sachets from Bautista’s pocket. Undoubtedly, the frisking was legally authorized as a search incidental to the lawful arrest of Bautista for evidence in the commission of illegal drug pushing. People of the Philippines v. Cesar Bautista y Santos, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL SALE; ELEMENTS. Jurisprudence holds that the elements of the crime of illegal sale of drugs are the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. The testimonies of Romano, corroborated by his fellow NBI investigators Jimenez and Dizon and informant Cedeño Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

established the sale and delivery by accused-appellant Clarite to Romano of what was initially believed to be 50 grams of shabu in four plastic sachets, in exchange for what Clarite thought was P50,000.00. Romano positively identified accused-appellant Clarite as the person who sold the plastic sachets of shabu to him. It was likewise clear from the evidence on record that P/Insp. Clemen examined the contents of the plastic sachets sold to Romano, and confirmed that they contained methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), even though the total weight was only 45.8712 grams. P/Insp. Clemen was also able to verify that both hands of accusedappellant were positive for the presence of bright orange ultraviolet fluorescent powder, thus, corroborating the testimonies of the NBI investigators that he received the counterfeit money which were dusted with such powder. This also belies the testimony of accusedappellant that he never held the marked money. Thus, the accusedappellant’s conviction under RA 9165 is affirmed. People of the Philippines v. Arnel Clarite y Salazar, G.R. No. 187157, 15 February 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS; ELEMENTS. The essential elements to be established in the prosecution of illegal sale of marijuana are as follows: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (3) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. In this case, the evidence on record showed the presence of all the above elements. The witnesses for the prosecution successfully proved that a buy-bust operation took place and the block of marijuana subject of the sale was brought to, and duly identified in court. PO3 Garcia, the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellants as the persons who sold to him one block of marijuana dried leaves wrapped in a

CRIMINAL LAW

7

newspaper in exchange for the sum of P1,000.00. PO3 Garcia’s testimony was corroborated on material points by his team leader, SPO3 De Guzman, SPO3 Galliguez, and SPO2 Natividad. PNP Forensic Chemist Police Supt. Theresa Ann Cid examined the items seized and found them to be positive for marijuana. People of the Philippines v. Teofilo Honrado and Romulo Honrado, G.R. No. 182197, 27 February 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS; ELEMENTS. It was held in People v. Hernandez that the following essential elements must be established in order to secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. People v. Naquita states that 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. The above elements have been sufficiently established by the prosecution. PO2 Memoracion was the poseur-buyer and he identified the accusedappellant as the seller. The object of the sale was the sachet containing eight centigrams (0.08 grams) of shabu, which bore the marking “RAM-1,” and the consideration paid by the poseur-buyer therefor consisted of the P200 marked money. PO2 Memoracion also categorically stated that the object of the sale was in fact handed to him by the accused-appellant after he gave her the marked money. People of the Philippines v. Rosemarie Magundayao y Alejandro alias “Rose,” G.R. No. 188132, 29 February 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; CHAIN OF CUSTODY. In many cases, that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, “as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.” The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution’s failure to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of RA 9165, will not render Mendoza’s arrest illegal or the items seized from her inadmissible. Here, it was shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been preserved. The plastic sachet containing shabu was marked, kept, and delivered to the forensic chemist by the same officer who received it from Mendoza. Ching, the poseur-buyer, marked the plastic sachet he bought from Mendoza with “SOG-1” after the buy-bust team arrested her. Thereafter, the marked plastic sachet, together with the laboratory request, was delivered by Ching himself to Macapagal for examination. Macapagal’s Chemistry Report showed that she received a plastic sachet marked “SOG-1” for examination at around 3:20 p.m. After she completed her examination at 5:20 p.m., she placed the same marked plastic sachet in a small brown envelope, which she in turn dated, signed, and sealed with a staple wire. It is therefore clear, that the prosecution was able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the shabu, from the moment it was seized from Mendoza, up to the time it was presented during the trial as proof of the corpus delicti. People of the Philippines v. Emily Mendoza y Sartin, G.R. No. 189327, 29 February 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL SALE; ELEMENTS. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are the (1) identities of the buyer and the seller, object, and consideration, and (2) delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. 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. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.

CRIMINAL LAW

8

The testimonial and the documentary pieces of evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case against the appellant establish the presence of these elements. First, the identity of the seller was duly established. Second, the police officers saw the appellant handing the sachet to the poseur-buyer in exchange of the P100.00 peso bill that the appellant earlier received from the poseur-buyer. People of the Philippines v. Jerome Paler, G.R. No. 188103, 7 March 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; BUY BUST OPERATION; COORDINATION WITH PDEA. On appeal, accused-appellant assailed his conviction by insisting that the buy bust operation conducted by the Philippine National Police (PNP) which was instrumental to his arrest was invalid because of alleged violation of Section 86 of R.A. 9165, requiring that the PNP maintain close coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on all drug related matters. The Supreme Court ruled that accused-appellant’s contention is unmeritorious. It is settled that Section 86 of R.A. 9165 does not invalidate operations on account of the law enforcers’ failure to maintain close coordination with the PDEA. Section 86, as well as the Internal Rules and Regulations implementing the same, is silent as to the consequences of the failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This “silence” [cannot] be interpreted as a legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.” People v. Figueroa, G.R. No. 186141, 11 April 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED OR REGULATED DRUGS; ELEMENTS. Illegal possession of prohibited or regulated drugs is committed when the following elements concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. All these elements were established beyond reasonable doubt in the cases against accused-appellant. The prosecution witnesses consistently and categorically testified that pursuant to a search warrant duly issued by a judge, they found and seized from accusedappellant’s house and actual possession a brick of marijuana leaves and heat-sealed sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. People v. Velazquez, G.R. No. 177244, 11 April 2012. DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. This appeal involves two distinct drug-related offenses, namely: illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires: (a) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (b) the presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti, or the dangerous drugs themselves. It is crucial that the Prosecution establishes the identity of the seized dangerous drugs in a way that the integrity thereof has been well preserved from the time of seizure or confiscation from the accused until the time of presentation as evidence in court. Nothing less than a faithful compliance with this duty is demanded of all law enforcers arresting drug pushers and drug possessors and confiscating and seizing the dangerous drugs and substances from them. Here, the Prosecution failed to demonstrate a faithful compliance by the arresting lawmen of the rule on chain of custody. Further, the State did not establish the identity of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from petitioner with the same exacting certitude required for a finding of guilt. Although PO2 Payumo declared that he was the one who had received the sachet of shabu (“RRS-1”) from petitioner and who had confiscated the two sachets of shabu (“RRS-2”) from petitioner, all of which he had then sealed, nothing more to support the fact that the evidence thus seized had remained intact was adduced. Also, the Prosecution did not

CRIMINAL LAW

9

show to whom the seized articles had been turned over following the conduct of the laboratory examination, and how the seized articles had been kept in a manner that preserved their integrity until their final presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Such lapses of the Prosecution were fatal to its proof of guilt because they demonstrated that the chain of custody did not stay unbroken, thereby raising doubt on the integrity and identity of the dangerous drugs as evidence of the corpus delicti of the crimes charged. Petitioner is acquitted. Rogelio S. Reyes v. The Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 180177, 18 April 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; BUY BUST; REQUIRED PROCEDURES. Given the nature of buy-bust operations and the resulting preventive procedural safeguards crafted in R.A. 9165, courts must tread carefully before giving full credit to the testimonies of those who conducted the operations. Although it has been ruled in the past that mere procedural lapses in the conduct of a buy-bust operation are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecution’s cause, so long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, courts must still thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards drawn by the law. Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of law enforcers, we stress that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. Here, the conduct of the buy-bust operations was peppered with defects, which raises doubts on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items from accusedappellant. First, there were material inconsistencies in the marking of the seized items. Second, the SAID-SOTF failed to show genuine and sufficient effort to seek the third-party representatives enumerated Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. Third, the SAID-SOTF failed to duly accomplish the Certificate of Inventory and to take photos of the seized items pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. Accusedappellant Sammy Umipang y Abdul is therefore acquitted of the charges in Criminal Cases No. 14935-D-TG and No. 14936-D-TG on the ground of reasonable doubt. People of the Philippines v. Sammy Umipag y Abdul, G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY AND PRESCRIBED PROCEDURES. Non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements does not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held valid, provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been properly preserved. These conditions, however, were not met in the present case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification for the failure of SPO4 Mendoza to follow the prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized items. As held in People v. De Guzman, the failure to follow the procedure mandated under RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations must be adequately explained. The justifiable ground for the non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right. Petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes are acquitted for the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and Eroll Marcelino y

CRIMINAL LAW

10

accordance with the following rules:… after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less than two years.” Under Section 2 of the same Act, “[t]he prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty person, and shall begin to run again if the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not constituting jeopardy. Since B.P. 22 is a special law that imposes a penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30) days but not more than one year or by a fine for its violation, it therefor prescribes in four (4) years in accordance with the aforecited law. The running of the prescriptive period, however, should be tolled upon the institution of proceedings against the guilty person. People of the Philippines v. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, 13 June 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY. In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the chain of custody over the dangerous drug must be shown to establish the corpus delicti. The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under R.A. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. Under Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, “chain of custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. People of the

Reyes v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 190749, 25 April 2012.

Philippines v. Gomer S. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, 13 June 2012.

B.P. 22; PRESCRIPTION. Under Section 1 of Act No. 3326 which is the law applicable to B.P. 22 cases, “[v]iolations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in such acts, prescribe in

DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS. In order to convict appellant for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, or the shabu in this case, the prosecution evidence Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

must prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements: (a) the appellant was in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the appellant freely and consciously possessed the drug. In this case, the fact of possession by appellant of the bag containing the shabu was not established in the first place. In every criminal prosecution, the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged and the complicity or participation of the accused. While a lone witness’ testimony is sufficient to convict an accused in certain instances, the testimony must be clear, consistent, and credible—qualities we cannot ascribe to this case. Jurisprudence is consistent that for testimonial evidence to be believed, it must both come from a credible witness and be credible in itself – tested by human experience, observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through the years. Clearly from the foregoing, the prosecution failed to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was indeed in possession of shabu, and that he freely and consciously possessed the same. People of the Philippines v. Zafra Maraorao y Macabalang, G.R. No. 174369, 20 June 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. On appeal, the accused-appellants questioned the Court Appeals’ affirmation of their conviction by arguing that the arresting officers failed to comply with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165. They claim that the officers failed to conduct the following: (1) make a physical inventory of the seized items; (2) take photographs of the items; and (3) establish that a representative each from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official had been contacted and was present during the marking of the items. In this case, the records are bereft of any indication that would show that the prosecution was able to establish

CRIMINAL LAW

11

the arresting officers’ compliance with the procedural safeguards under R.A. 9165. Neither do the records contain any physical inventory report or photograph of the confiscated items. None of the arresting officers testified that they had conducted a physical inventory or taken pictures of the items. Nor did they state that there was even any attempt to contact a representative from the media and the DOJ, and an elected public official. Nowhere can it be found that the marking of the items was done in the presence of any of the said third-party representatives. In all these major lapses, no one gave so much as an explanation of why the procedure was not followed, or whether there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so. The arresting officers and the prosecution simply did not bother discussing these matters. R.A. 9165 has a strict mandate for the arresting officers to comply with the afore-quoted procedural safeguards. People of the Philippines v. Joel Ancheta y Osan, et al, G.R. No. 197371, 13 June 2012.

RA 3019; PRESCRIPTION. Violations falling under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 prescribe in fifteen (15) years as provided under Section 11 of R.A. 3019. Petitioner maintains that, although the charge against respondents was for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, its prosecution relates to its efforts to recover the ill-gotten wealth of former President Ferdinand Marcos and of his family and cronies. Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides that the right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees is not barred by prescription, laches, or estoppel. But the Supreme Court has already settled in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto that Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution applies only to civil actions for recovery of ill-gotten wealth, not to criminal cases such as the complaint against respondents in OMB-0-90-2810. Thus, the prosecution of offenses arising from, relating or incident to, or Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

involving ill-gotten wealth contemplated in Section 15, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution may be barred by prescription. Notably, Section 11 of R.A. 3019 now provides that the offenses committed under that law prescribes in 15 years. Republic of the Philippines v. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 139930, 26 June 2012.

R.A. 3019; SECTION 3(E) ELEMENTS. Under Section 3(e) of RA 3019, one can be charged with corrupt practices of public officer by “[c]ausing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. The said crime has the following essential elements: (a) the accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; (b) he must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and (c) his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. People of the Philippines v. Aristeo E. Atienza, Rodrigo D. Manongson, Crispin M. Egarque, and the Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 171671, 18 June 2012.

R.A. 3019; SECTION 3(E) ELEMENTS. As aptly concluded by the Sandiganbayan in the assailed resolution, the second element of the crime as charged was not sufficiently established by the prosecution. Manifest partiality and evident bad faith are modes that are separate and distinct from each other so that the existence of any of these two modes would be sufficient to satisfy the second element. However, manifest partiality was not present in this case. The evidence adduced did not show that accused-movants favored other persons

CRIMINAL LAW

12

who were similarly situated with the private complainant. Eyewitness Alexander Singson categorically pointed accused Manongsong and Egarque as the persons who destroyed/removed the second fence. Private complainant lamented that he was not even given notice of their intent to destroy the fence. However, the same could not be considered evident bad faith as the prosecution evidence failed to show that the destruction was for a dishonest purpose, ill will or selfinterest. People of the Philippines v. Aristeo E. Atienza, Rodrigo D. Manongson, Crispin M. Egarque, and the Hon. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 171671, 18 June 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF SHABU. As to the crime of illegal possession of shabu, the prosecution clearly proved the presence of the following essential elements of the crime: (a) the accused [was] in possession of an item or object that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession [was] not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. After the arrest of the accused-appellant, seventeen (17) heat-sealed sachets of white substance were found in his possession. The chemistry report showed that the white substance in the plastic sachets tested for shabu. There was no showing that such possession was authorized by law. The conviction of the accused-appellant by the lower courts is, therefore, sustained. People of the Philippines v. John Brian Amarillo y Mapa a.k.a. “Jao Mapa,” G.R. No. 194721, 15 August 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL SALE OF SHABU. After a buy-bust operation conducted by the police operatives, accused was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. To prove illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. And, to secure conviction, it is material to establish that the Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as evidence. Here, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant, not being authorized by law, sold a sachet of shabu to PO1 Mendoza in a buy-bust operation. Further, the seized items, together with the result of the laboratory examination and the marked money were all presented in court. People of the Philippines v. John Brian Amarillo y Mapa a.k.a. “Jao Mapa,” G.R. No. 194721, 15 August 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; FAILURE TO STRICTLY COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 21, R.A. 9165. The defense argues that the arresting officers did not testify that the marking of the seized items were done in the presence of the persons mentioned by the law and its implementing rules; and that testimonies on how the confiscated items were turned over to the investigator for examination were lacking. It is well-settled that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. An accused may still be found guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe the requirements provided under Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165, for as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken. People of the Philippines v. John Brian Amarillo y Mapa a.k.a. “Jao Mapa,” G.R. No. 194721, 15 August 2012.

FORFEITURE; DUE PROCESS. This case seeks to annul and set aside the Sandiganbayan Resolution which ordered the forfeiture of some of the properties of the late NBI Director, Jolly R. Bugarin pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court (“SC”) in Republic of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan. The heirs of Bugarin pray that the Sandiganbayan be compelled to conduct hearings for the purpose of properly determining the properties of Bugarin that should be

CRIMINAL LAW

13

forfeited in favor of the Republic, this despite the fact that the SC in Republic has already decreed that properties of Bugarin acquired from 1968 to 1980 which were disproportionate to his lawful income during the said period be forfeited in favor of the Republic. The SC held that Bugarin was accorded due process. He was given his day in court to prove that his acquired properties were lawfully attained. The summary of properties acquired by Bugarin during his tenure as NBI Director was based on his very own exhibits. From this enumeration, the SC set aside those properties that had been liquidated or those that had been obtained in 1981 onwards. Even those properties the acquisition dates of which could no longer be determined were also excluded, all to the benefit of Bugarin. What remained was a trimmed-down listing of properties from which the Sandiganbayan may choose to execute the forfeiture order of the SC. The essence of due process is the right to be heard. Bugarin or his heirs were certainly not denied that right. Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy. The Heirs of Jolly R. Bugarin namely Ma. Aileen H. Bugarin, Ma. Linda B. Abiog and Ma. Annette B. Sumulong v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 174431, August 6, 2012.

JURISDICTION; SANDIGANBAYAN. The Sandiganbayan maintains that Section 4(a)(1)(g) of RA 8249 which defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, cannot apply to the accused, Bello, because, while he held the highest rank among those who allegedly conspired to commit the crime charged, he did not hold any of the government positions enumerated under that section, i.e., presidents, directors or trustees, or managers of government-owned or controlled corporations. The term “manager” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary is one who has charge of the corporation and control of its businesses, or of its branches, establishments, divisions, or departments, and who is Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

vested with a certain amount of discretion and independent judgment. Under this definition, the Supreme Court held that respondent Bello was covered under the term “manager,” he having charge of the Armed Forces of the Philippines-Retirement and Separation Benefit System Legal Department when the questioned transactions took place. As such, he is within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. People of the Philippines v. Meinrado Enrique A. Bello, et al., G.R. No. 166948-59, 29 August 2012.

JURISDICTION; SANDIGANBAYAN. Respondent Bello argues that the Sandiganbayan does not exercise jurisdiction over him because his rank at the time of the commission of the acts complained of was merely that of Police Superintendent in the Philippine National Police. However, the Information does not charge him for offenses relating to the regular police work of a police officer of his rank. He is rather charged for offenses he committed in relation to his office, namely, that of a “manager” of the Legal Department of the Armed Forces of the Philippines-Retirement and Separation Benefit System (“AFPRSBS”), a government-owned and controlled corporation. What is needed is that the public officials mentioned by law must commit the offense described in Section 3(e) of RA 3019 while in the performance of official duties or in relation to the office being held. Here, the OMB charged Bello with using his office as Legal Department Head to manipulate the documentations of AFP-RSBS land acquisitions to the prejudice of the government. People of the Philippines v. Meinrado Enrique A. Bello, et al, G.R. No. 166948-59, 29 August 2012.

OMBUDSMAN; FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE OMBUDSMAN. Petitioner was designated as a Special Collecting Officer at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Customs House, Collection Division, Pasay City. The Audit Observation Memorandum dated November 26, 2002, reported that petitioner had an unremitted collection from the sale of accountable forms with money value and stamps. Based on

CRIMINAL LAW

14

the analysis of the monthly sales of accountable forms and stamps, petitioner failed to remit a total of P53, 214,258.00 from January 2000 to October 2002. The Ombudsman rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. Insisting on his innocence, petitioner claims that no competent evidence was presented before the Ombudsman to show that he is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct. The Court (“SC”) held that questions of fact may not be the subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court as the SC is not a trier of facts. As a rule, findings of fact of the Ombudsman, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding upon the SC unless there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman. There is none here. There is substantial evidence to show that petitioner failed to remit the amount of P53,658,371.00 from the sale of accountable forms with money value and documentary stamps from January 2000 up to October 2002. Ernesto A. Fajardo v. Office of the Ombudsman, et al, G.R. No. 173268, August 23, 2012.

ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS. After a buy-bust operation conducted by the police operatives, accused were charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. In ruling against the accused, the Supreme Court (“SC”) cited People of the Philippines v. Ricky Unisa y Islan, where it held that the sale of prohibited drugs is consummated upon delivery of the drugs to the buyer: “For a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and 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 evidence of corpus delicti. Clearly, the commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated.” As borne by the records, all the above elements constituting the sale of shabu by the appellants were clearly testified to by PO Hamdani who averred that he received P1,000.00 worth of shabu from accused after the latter gave the buy-bust money to De Jesus. Accordingly, the SC found the accused guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. People of the Philippines v. Ronald De Jesus y Apacible and Amelito Dela Cruz y Pua, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September 2012.

ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS. Accused cites several irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and in the presentation of the corpus delicti. The Court (“SC”) gave no credence to his arguments. The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (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. 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. Sistemio, the poseur-buyer in this case, positively testified that the sale of shabu actually took place when he himself parted with the marked money and received the shabu from appellant. Yu corroborated Sistemio’s narration, as he also personally witnessed the transaction given that he was posted a few meters away from Sistemio and the accused. The SC also found that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team under the chain of custody rule. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has established beyond doubt an unbroken link in the chain of custody. Hence, it has been established

CRIMINAL LAW

15

by proof beyond reasonable doubt that appellant here sold shabu. People of the Philippine v. Mohamad Angkob y Mlang, G.R. No. 191062, 19 September 2012.

ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for illegal sale of dangerous drugs after finding that the following elements were sufficiently proved beyond reasonable doubt: (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 P500.00 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 buybust 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. People of the Philippines v. Calexto D. Fundales, G.R. No. 184606, 5 September 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; BUY-BUST OPERATION. Accused Robelo asserts that the alleged buy-bust operation is tainted with infirmity due to the absence of a prior surveillance or investigation. Moreover, per the testimony of PO2 Tubbali, accused did not say anything when the former was introduced to him as an interested buyer of shabu. Accused points out that it is contrary to human nature that the seller would say nothing to the buyer who is a complete stranger to him. The Supreme Court sustained the validity of the buy-bust operation. A buy-bust operation has been proven to be an effective mode of Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

apprehending drug pushers. In this regard, police authorities are given wide latitude in employing their own ways of trapping or apprehending drug dealers inflagrante delicto. There is no prescribed method on how the operation is to be conducted. As ruled in People v. Garcia, the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation as there is no textbook method of conducting the same. As long as the constitutional rights of the suspected drug dealer are not violated, the regularity of the operation will always be upheld. Furthermore, the law does not prescribe as an element of the crime that the vendor and the vendee be familiar with each other. As aptly held by the Court of Appeals in this case, peddlers of illicit drugs have been known with ever increasing casualness and recklessness to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they strangers or not. People of the Philippines v. Joseph Robelo y Tungala, G.R. No. 184181, 26 November 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; EVIDENCE; POSSESSION. Accused Eyam was caught in possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. He failed to show that he was authorized to possess the same. By his mere possession of the drug, there is already a prima facie evidence of knowledge, which he failed to rebut. Supreme Court sustained his conviction for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drug, in violation of Section 11 of Article II of R.A. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. People of the Philippines v. George Eyam y Watang, G.R. No. 184056, 26 November 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA; ELEMENTS. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted Godofredo of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. The elements of illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) possession or

CRIMINAL LAW

16

control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. The prosecution here has convincingly established that Godofredo was in possession of drug paraphernalia such as aluminum foil, aluminium tooter and lighter, all of which were offered in evidence. The corresponding receipt and inventory of the seized shabu and other drug paraphernalia were likewise presented in evidence. Moreover, Police Superintendent Leonidas Diaz Castillo attested to the veracity of the contents of these documents. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. People of the Philippines v. Godofredo Mariano y Feliciano and Allan Doringo y Gunan, G.R. No. 191193, 14 November 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS. Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (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. 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. All these elements were duly established by the prosecution in this case. Appellants were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu during a buy-bust operation conducted by the buy-bust team. The poseur-buyer, PO1 Olleres, positively testified that the sale took place and that appellants sold the shabu. Simply put, Godofredo produced two (2) plastic sachets containingshabu and gave it to PO1 Olleres in exchange for P1,000.00. Also, Allan had offered and given two (2) more sachets containing shabu to PO3 Razo, who in turn, handed him P600.00. PO3 Razo corroborated the account of PO1 Olleres. The result of the Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

laboratory examination confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride on the white crystalline substances inside the four (4) plastic sachets confiscated from appellants. The marked money was presented in evidence. Thus, the delivery of the illicit drug to PO1 Olleres and PO3 Razo and the receipt by appellants of the marked money successfully consummated the buy-bust transaction. People of the Philippines v. Godofredo Mariano y Feliciano and Allan Doringo y Gunan, G.R. No. 191193, 14 November 2012.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; SALE OR POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; NARCOTICS SUBSTANCE CONSTITUTES CORPUS DELICTI. Sale or possession of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Nacua, et al, accused; Reynaldo Nacua, accused-appellant, G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; SALE OR POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RULES ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIRED. Given the unique characteristic of dangerous and illegal drugs which are indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution, either by accident or otherwise, there must be strict compliance with the prescribed measures to be observed during and after the seizure of dangerous drugs and related paraphernalia, during the custody and transfer thereof for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court. Such measures are described with particularity under section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165 and section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165. Moreover, in People v. Coreche, the Supreme

CRIMINAL LAW

17

Court emphasized that the marking of the seized drugs must be done immediately after they are seized from the accused and failure to do so suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and raises reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the corpus delicti. People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Nacua, et al,

accused; Reynaldo Nacua, accused-appellant, G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; SALE OR POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RULES ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY REQUIRED. In this case, there was a total disregard of the requirements of law and jurisprudence. The prosecution even admits that the police officers acquired the sachet of shabu presented in court against accused-appellant in a mere “testbuy” operation by SPO1 Rosales, PO3 Luague, and PO1 Aniñon. The police officers, after supposedly buying the sachet of shabu from the Nacua couple for Two Hundred Pesos (P200.00), left the residence of the Nacua couple, without recovering the marked money or effecting the couple’s arrest. The police officers brought the sachet of suspected shabu all the way back to their police station, and only there marked the said item, without the presence of the accused and/or other disinterested witnesses. While the Supreme Court (SC) allows for relaxation of the rules in some cases, there must be compelling and justifiable grounds for the same and it must be shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly preserved. However, such conditions are not present in the instant case. Firstly, the prosecution did not offer any explanation as to why the police officers failed to strictly comply with the established procedure for the custody of the suspected shabu. The SC thus surmised that the operation on September 2, 2005 was only meant to be a “test-buy,” so that the police officers could secure a search warrant for the house of the Nacua couple. There was no original Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

intention to arrest and charge the Nacua couple for the shabu purchase that day. Surprisingly and inexplicably, however, the prosecution chose to indict the Nacua couple for the “test-buy” conducted on September 2, 2005, rather than for the result of the search conducted on September 21, 2005 at the house of the Nacua couple which purportedly yielded more shabu and related paraphernalia and led to the arrest of the couple. Secondly, the prosecution failed to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the sachet of suspected shabu allegedly bought from the Nacua couple during the “test-buy” operation has been properly preserved from the time said item was transmitted to the crime laboratory up to its presentation in court. No evidence was offered to show as to how the said specimen was kept and by whom after its forensic examination throughout its presentation in court. With reasonable doubt as to the authenticity of the corpus delicti, the acquittal of accused-appellant of the crime charged is in order. People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Nacua, et al, accused; Reynaldo Nacua, accusedappellant, G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE. The accused argues that the NBI operatives failed to observe the chain of custody rule in dangerous drugs cases. The Supreme Court did not agree. The alleged failure of the apprehending team to inventory and photograph the confiscated items immediately after the operation is not fatal to the prosecution’s cause. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Here, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs had been preserved as there is evidence to account for the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized shabu, starting from its confiscation to its presentation as evidence in the

CRIMINAL LAW

18

Regional Trial Court. People of the Philippines v. Hong Yen E and Tsien Tsien Chua, G.R. No. 181826, 9 January 2013.

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ELEMENTS. The elements of illegal possession of prohibited drugs are as follows: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the prohibited drug. The evidence on record clearly established that appellant Chua was in possession of the plastic bags containing prohibited drugs without the requisite authority. Applying section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, a disputable presumption arises that she is the owner of the bag and its contents. It may be rebutted by contrary proof that the accused did not in fact exercise power and control over the thing in question, and did not intend to do so. The burden of evidence is thus shifted to the possessor to explain absence of animus possidendi. Here, Chua failed to present evidence to rebut the presumption. People of the Philippines v. Hong Yen E and Tsien Tsien Chua, G.R. No. 181826, 9 January 2013.

ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; BUY-BUST OPERATIONS OR DECOY SOLICITATIONS ARE VALID. A police officer’s act of soliciting drugs from appellant during the buy-bust operation, or what is known as the “decoy solicitation,” is not prohibited by law and does not invalidate the buy-bust operation. In People v. Legaspi, the Supreme Court pronounced that in a prosecution for sale of illicit drugs, any of the following will not exculpate the accused: (1) that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionally placed in his way; or (2) that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the decoy or poseur-buyer seeking to expose his criminal act; or (3) that the police authorities feigning complicity in the act were present and apparently assisted in its commission. Hence, even assuming that the PAOCTF operatives repeatedly asked her to sell them shabu, Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

appellant’s defense of instigation will not prosper. This is especially true in that class of cases where the offense is the kind that is habitually committed, and the solicitation merely furnished evidence of a course of conduct. Mere deception by the police officer will not shield the perpetrator, if the offense was committed by him free from the influence or instigation of the police officer. People of the

Philippines v. Simpresueta M. Seraspe, G.R. No. 180919, 9 January 2013.

ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ELEMENTS. In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the two essential elements are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Hence, evidence that establishes both elements by the required quantum of proof, i.e., guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must be presented. Here, the said elements were duly proved by the prosecution. Carla and P/Chief Insp. Dandan positively identified appellant and her co-accused as the sellers of the contraband who sold the same in exchange for the marked money. The item was seized, marked and upon examination was identified as shabu, a dangerous drug. The same was subsequently presented in evidence. Moreover, Carla provided a detailed testimony as to the delivery and sale of shabu. Thus, the SC found no reason to doubt the above testimony of Carla. Aside from the fundamental rule that findings of the trial court regarding the credibility of prosecution witnesses are accorded respect considering that it is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe their conduct and demeanor, the SC noted that appellant herself corroborated the prosecution’s account of the crime. People of the Philippines v. Simpresueta M. Seraspe, G.R. No. 180919, 9 January 2013.

RA 9262; VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN; LENIENCY IN FAVOR OF ACCUSED DUE TO AMBIGUITY OF THE

CRIMINAL LAW

19

LAW INAPPLICABLE. The Supreme Court held that it cannot construe the statute in favor of petitioner using the rule of leniency because there is no ambiguity in RA 9262 that would necessitate any construction. While the degree of physical harm under RA 9262 and Article 2668 of the Revised Penal Code are the same, there is sufficient justification for prescribing a higher penalty for the former. Clearly, the legislative intent is to purposely impose a more severe sanction on the offenders whose violent act/s physically harm women with whom they have or had a sexual or dating relationship, and/or their children with the end in view of promoting the protection of women and children. Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego v. Regional

Trial Court, Branch 59, Angeles City, etc., et al, G.R. No. 193960, 7 January 2013.

RA 9262; VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN; CRIME OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN; ELEMENTS. Petitioner here insists that the act which resulted in physical injuries to private respondent is not covered by RA 9262 because its proximate cause was not their dating relationship. Instead, he claims that the offense committed was only slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code which falls under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court. The Supreme Court (SC) did not give credence to this argument. In Ang v. Court of Appeals, the SC enumerated the elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment, to wit: (1) The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman; (2) The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and (3) The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her. Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Angeles City, etc., et al, G.R. No. 193960, 7 January 2013.

Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

RA 9262; VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN; CRIME OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN NEED NOT BE A CONSEQUENCE OF AN EXISTING OR PRESENT DATING RELATIONSHIP. Notably, while it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman for RA 9262 to be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationship. Nowhere in the law can such limitation be inferred. Hence, applying the rule on statutory construction that when the law does not distinguish, neither should the courts, then, clearly, the punishable acts refer to all acts of violence against women with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship. As correctly ruled by the Regional Trial Court, it is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased for as long as there is sufficient evidence showing the past or present existence of such relationship between the offender and the victim when the physical harm was committed. Consequently, the SC did not depart from the parallelism in Ang and give credence to petitioner’s assertion that the act of violence should be due to the sexual or dating relationship. Karlo Angelo Dabalos y San Diego v. Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Angeles City, etc., et al, G.R. No. 193960, 7 January 2013.

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT; OFFENSES UNDER SECTION 3(E) OF R.A. 3019. Braza challenges the sufficiency of the allegations in the second information because there is no indication of any actual and quantifiable injury suffered by the government. He then argues that the facts under the second information are inadequate to support a valid indictment for violation of section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court (SC) has held that there are two (2) ways by which a public official violates section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 in the performance of his functions, namely: [1] by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or [2] by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.

CRIMINAL LAW

20

The accused may be charged under either mode or under both. The disjunctive term “or” connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. In other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction. It must be emphasized that Braza was indicted for violation of section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 under the second mode. “To be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative and judicial functions.” The element of damage is not required for violation of section 3(e) under the second mode. In the case at bench, the second information alleged, in substance, that accused public officers and employees, discharging official or administrative function, together with Braza, confederated and conspired to give FABMIK Construction and Equipment Supply Company, Inc. unwarranted benefit or preference by awarding to it Contract J.D. No. 06H00050 through manifest partiality or evident bad faith, without the conduct of a public bidding and compliance with the requirement for qualification contrary to the provisions of R.A. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act. Settled is the rule that private persons, when acting in conspiracy with public officers, may be indicted and, if found guilty, held liable for the pertinent offenses under section 3 of R.A. 3019. Isabelo A. Braza vs. Sandiganbayan [1st Division], GR 195032, 20 February 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; BUY-BUST OPERATIONS; DISTINCTION BETWEEN ENTRAPMENT AND INSTIGATION. A buybust operation has been recognized in this jurisdiction as a legitimate form of entrapment of the culprit. It is distinct from instigation, in that the accused who is otherwise not predisposed to commit the crime is enticed or lured or talked into committing the crime. While entrapment is legal, instigation is not. In entrapment, prior surveillance is not necessary to render a buy-bust operation legitimate, especially when the buy-bust team is accompanied to the Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

target area by the informant. Also, the presentation of an informant as a witness is not regarded as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused in view of the need to protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts. Only when the testimony of the informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the culprit should the need to protect his security be disregarded. Here, the police officer, who acted as a poseur-buyer, asked the accused if he could buy shabu, and the latter, in turn, quickly transacted with the former, receiving the marked bill from the police officer and turning over the sachet of shabu he took from his pocket. The accused was shown to have been ready to sell the shabu without much prodding from the police officer. There is no question that the idea to commit the crime originated from the mind of the accused. Also, the informant’s testimony as a witness against the accused would only be corroborative of the sufficient testimony of the police officer as the poseur-buyer; hence, such testimony was unnecessary. People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, 6 February 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; CHAIN OF CUSTODY; BUY-BUST OPERATIONS. The chain of custody of the seized drugs in a buy-bust operation is sufficiently established when there is proof of the following: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. The failure of the police officers to make an inventory report and to photograph the drugs seized from Linda and Elizabeth, as required by Article II, section 21,

CRIMINAL LAW

21

paragraph 1 of R.A. 9165, are not automatically fatal to the prosecution’s case, as it was able to trace and prove the chain of custody of the same. People of the Philippines v. Linda Alviz y Yatco and Elizabeth Dela Vega y Bautista, G.R. No. 177158, February 6, 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; CHAIN OF CUSTODY; PROCEDURE. The buy-bust team in this case did not observe the procedures laid down in section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165. They did not conduct a physical inventory and no photograph of the confiscated item was taken in the presence of the accused-appellant, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. In fact, the prosecution failed to present an accomplished Certificate of Inventory. Further, the circumstances obtaining from the time the buy-bust team was organized until the chain of custody commenced were riddled with procedural lapses and inconsistencies between the testimony and the documents presented as evidence in court so much so that even assuming, that the physical inventory contemplated in R.A. 9165 subsumes the marking of the items itself, the belated marking of the seized items at the police station sans the required presence of the accused and the witnesses enumerated under section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, and absent a justifiable ground to stand on, cannot be considered a minor deviation from the procedures prescribed by the law. There being a “gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards” the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is overturned. People vs. Jose Alex V. Secreto GR 198115, 27 February 2013

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; CHAIN OF CUSTODY; SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE MAY BE SANCTIONED. Defense suggests that the non-marking of the seized illegal drug at the place where the same Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

was confiscated is enough to exonerate the accused-appellant. The reason is that this allegedly places in doubt the authenticity of the drug delivered to the crime laboratory for examination. However, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution has properly established the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least from the time it came into possession of the police officers, during its testing in the laboratory to determine its composition and up to the time it was offered in evidence. The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending police officers, substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody is sanctioned. People of the Philippines v. Saiben Langcua y Daimla, G.R. No. 190343, February 6, 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; CHAIN OF CUSTODY; INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SEIZED ITEMS SHOULD BE PRESERVED. Failure to strictly comply with section 21 of R.A. 9165, which outlines the procedure on the chain of custody of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, will not render an arrest illegal or the items seized from the accused inadmissible in evidence. What is crucial is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In the case at bar, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution was able to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs had been maintained. P/Insp. Salazar, who was one of the apprehending officers, marked the seized items in front of accused Manalao and the other apprehending officers. P/Insp. Salazar, who was also the investigating officer, thereafter signed a request for the laboratory

CRIMINAL LAW

22

examination of the seized drugs, which was received by Forensic Chemist Mag-abo, together with the items enumerated therein. She then testified in open court on how her examination confirmed that the seized items, which she submitted in court, tested positive for shabu. Besides, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered or meddled with, the presumptions that the integrity of such evidence had been preserved and that the police officers who handled the seized drugs had discharged their duties properly and with regularity remain. The burden to overcome such presumptions lies on Manalao, and the Supreme Court found that he failed to do so. People of the Philippines v. Malik Manalao y Alauya, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ELEMENTS. When prosecuting an illegal possession of dangerous drugs case, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. Mere possession of a prohibited drug, without legal authority, is punishable under R.A. 9165. Since accused Manalao failed to adduce any evidence showing that he had legal authority to possess the seized drugs, then he was correctly charged with its illegal possession. The Supreme Court has time and again looked upon the defense of denial with disfavor for being easily fabricated. Since accused failed to give anything more than his bare assertions, his defense of denial must necessarily be rejected. People of the Philippines v. Malik Manalao y Alauya, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ELEMENTS. In prosecuting cases for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. The above elements were all duly established by the prosecution. After De Jesus was validly arrested for the illegal sale of drugs, he was searched and frisked, pursuant to section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, or the provision on searches incident to lawful arrest. Upon such search, De Jesus was found to be in possession of eight heat-sealed sachets of shabu, an item identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug. De Jesus failed to show that he had authority to possess them. Moreover, mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of satisfactory explanation. People of the Philippines v. Victor De Jesus y Garcia, G.R. No. 198794, February 6, 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ELEMENTS. To prosecute illegal possession of dangerous drugs, there must be a showing that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. As an incident to the arrest, Galido was ordered to empty his pockets which led to the confiscation of another plastic sachet containing illegal drugs. The defense presented no evidence to prove that the possession was authorized by law, the defense being non-possession or denial of possession. However, such denial cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the police officials. For the defense position to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that government officials have performed their duties in a regular and proper manner. Galido failed to present any evidence that the police officials were distrustful in

CRIMINAL LAW

23

their performance of duties. He even testified that prior to the arrest; he did not have any quarrel or misunderstanding with the police officers nor was he acquainted with any reason that they carried a grudge against him. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the lower courts convicting Galido of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. People of the Philippines v. James Galido y Noble, G.R. No. 192231, February 13, 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ELEMENTS; ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE. In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following facts must be proven with moral certainty: (1) that the accused is in possession of the object identified as prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. Accused concedes that frisking passengers at the airport is a standard procedure but assails the conduct of Soriano and PO1 Trota-Bartolome in singling him out by making him stretch out his arms and empty his pockets. He believes such meticulous search was unnecessary because, as Soriano himself testified, there was no beep sound when petitioner walked past through the metal detector and hence nothing suspicious was indicated by that initial security check. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that prosecution has satisfactorily established that airport security officers found in the person of accused the marijuana fruiting tops, an illegal substance, contained in rolled paper sticks during the final security check at the airport’s pre-departure area. Accused’s reluctance to show the contents of his short pants pocket after the frisker’s hand felt the rolled papers containing marijuana, and his nervous demeanor aroused the suspicion of the arresting officers that he was indeed carrying an item or material subject to confiscation by the said authorities. The search of the contents of petitioner’s short pants Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

pockets being a valid search pursuant to routine airport security procedure, the illegal substance (marijuana) seized from him was therefore admissible in evidence. Don Djowel Sales y Abalahin v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 191023, February 6, 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ELEMENTS. The elements necessary to successfully prosecute an illegal sale of drugs case are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The prosecution must establish that the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs actually took place together with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the dangerous drugs seized in evidence. In this case, the prosecution was able to establish the above elements. Accused Manalao was positively identified by PO1 Solarta, who knew him even before the operation, as the one who sold the seized shabu subject of this case to the poseur-buyer. Manalao was caught in flagrante delicto in the entrapment operation conducted by the PNP of Tubod, Lanao del Norte. Moreover, the corpus delicti of the crime was also established with certainty and conclusiveness. People of the Philippines v. Malik Manalao y Alauya, G.R. No. 187496, February 6, 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ELEMENTS. As found by the lower courts, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another and (2) knew that what was sold and delivered was a prohibited drug; and illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) the accused is in possession of the object identified as a prohibited or regulatory drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drugs. Manifest on record is thatthe buy-bust transaction between the police operatives and Diwa

CRIMINAL LAW

24

was unequivocally established by the prosecution, and it was so found by both lower courts. After being identified by the informant, Diwa was approached by PO3 Galvez for the purchase of marijuana. Diwa, after ascertaining the quantity to be purchased and accepting the marked money from PO3 Galvez, handed him a portion of marijuana from the bunch wrapped in newspaper, contained in the yellow “SM Supermarket” plastic bag. The contents thereof were sent to the Physical Sciences Division, and after examination, confirmed to be marijuana, a dangerous drug. People of the Philippines v. Magsalin Diwa y Gutierrez, G.R. No. 194253, February 27, 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL SALE OF SHABU. To establish the crime of illegal sale of shabu, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the identity of the object and the consideration of the sale; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and of the payment for the thing. It simply requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens at the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. If a police officer goes through the operation as a buyer, the crime is consummated when the police officer makes an offer to buy that is accepted by the accused, and there is an ensuing exchange between them involving the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the police officer. Should the accused raise the defense of frame-up and extortion, the same must be established with clear and convincing evidence because the fact that frame-up and extortion could be easily concocted renders such defenses hard to believe. In this case, the accused merely put up self-serving denials. If indeed the accused was merely a victim of frame-up and extortion, there was no reason for him and his brother not to have formally charged the police officers with the severely penalized offense of planting of evidence under section 2915 of R.A. 9165 and extortion. Therefore, the Supreme Court rendered the defenses of frame-up and extortion implausible. Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

People of the Philippines v. Noel Bartolome y Bajo, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013.

DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; ILLEGAL SALE OF DRUGS; ELEMENTS. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. The commission of illegal sale merely consummates the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by seller, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated. In this case, the prosecution has adequately proven all the elements constituting sale of illegal drug. This is evident from the testimony of PO1 Domingo, who identified in open court the white crystalline substance contained in the plastic sachet as the one handed by Langcua to him during the buy-bust operation. The substance yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as evidenced by the Chemistry Report given by PSI Cayabyab. People of the Philippines v. Saiben Langcua y Daimla, G.R. No. 190343, February 6, 2013.

P.D. 1612 (ANTI-FENCING LAW); PRESENTATION OF SALES INVOICE OR RECEIPT PROVIDES PROOF OF A LEGITIMATE TRANSACTION WHICH IS DISPUTABLE. The accused was charged with violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, after he was found, in a buy-bust operation, to have possessed 13 of the 38 Firestone tires stolen from the owner AA. In his defense, accused alleged that he bought the tires from a certain store named Gold Link, as evidenced by a sales invoice issued in his name. The Supreme Court ruled that the defense of legitimate transaction is disputable and has in fact been disputed in this case. The validity of the issuance of the receipt was disputed, and the prosecution was able to prove that Gold Link and its address were fictitious. Ong failed to overcome the evidence presented by the prosecution and to prove

CRIMINAL LAW

25

the legitimacy of the transaction. Thus, he was unable to rebut the prima facie presumption under section 5 of P.D. 1612. Jaime Ong y Ong v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 190475, April 10, 2013. R. A. 6426; DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972; THE CRIME OF UNLAWFUL SALE OF MARIJUANA NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE CRIME OF UNLAWFUL POSSESSION THEREOF. The accused invoked on appeal his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him because the trial court convicted him for the crime of unlawful possession of marijuana under section 8 of R.A. 6426, although the information had charged him for unlawful sale of marijuana under section 4 of R.A. 6426. The Supreme Court held that the crime of illegal sale of marijuana implied prior possession of the marijuana. As such, the crime of illegal sale included or absorbed the crime of illegal possession. The right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was not violated simply because the information had precisely charged him with selling, delivering, giving away and distributing more or less 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves. Thus, he had been sufficiently given notice that he was also to be held to account for possessing more or less 750 grams of dried marijuana leaves. People of the Philippines v. Chad Manansala y Lagman, G.R. No. 175939, April 3, 2013.

R.A. 9165; DANGEROUS DRUGS LAW; CHAIN OF CUSTODY MUST BE PROVED FOR A CHARGE OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS TO SUCCEED. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of the accused where the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs alleged to have been sold by the accused to the poseur buyer. Although the police officer testified that he had marked the sachet of shabu with his own initials following arrest of the accused, he did not explain, either in his court testimony or in the joint affidavit of arrest, whether his marking had been done Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

in the presence of the accused, or done immediately upon the arrest of the accused. Nor did he show by testimony or otherwise who had taken custody of the sachet of shabu after he had done his marking, and who had subsequently brought the sachet of shabu to the police station, and, still later on, to the laboratory. Given the possibility of just anyone bringing any quantity of shabu to the laboratory for examination, there is now no assurance that the quantity presented here as evidence was the same article that had been the subject of the sale by the accused. The indeterminateness of the identities of the individuals who could have handled the sachet of shabu after the police officer’s marking broke the chain of custody, and tainted the integrity of the shabu ultimately presented as evidence to the trial court. People of the Philippines v. Alberto Gonzales y Santos aka Takyo, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013.

R.A. NO. 9165; DANGEROUS DRUGS LAW; PRESENCE OF THE BARANGAY CAPTAIN OR ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL NOT REQUIRED DURING THE BUY-BUST OPERATION, BUT ONLY DURING THE PHYSICAL INVENTORY CONDUCTED IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. The accused argued on appeal that the trial court failed to consider the procedural flaws committed by the arresting officers in the seizure and custody of drugs as embodied in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, of R.A. 9165. Among others, accused alleged that the barangay captain, was not present during the alleged buy-bust operation. He was only asked to sign the inventory of the seized items shortly after his arrival at the scene of the buy-bust operation. Thus, he has no personal knowledge as to whether the drugs allegedly seized from the accused were indeed recovered from them. The Supreme Court ruled that it is enough that the barangay captain is present during the physical inventory immediately conducted after the seizure and confiscation of the drugs and he signs the copies of the inventory and is given a copy thereof. Also, the barangay captain, not only positively identified by both accused, but also identified the items contained in the inventory receipt. Such

CRIMINAL LAW

26

testimony clearly established compliance with the requirement of Section 21 with regard to the presence and participation of the elected public official. People of the Philippines v. Gerry Octavio y Florendo and Reynaldo Cariño y Martir, G.R. No. 199219, April 3, 2013.

R.A. 9165; DANGEROUS DRUGS LAW; WHERE NONCOMPLIANCE OF THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE IS JUSTIFIED. The accused argued that the chain of custody of the illegal drug, which was confiscated upon her arrest, was not strictly followed. Specifically, the illegal drug was marked only in the police station, not in the place where the buy-bust operation took place. The prosecution explained that the police officers did not have the opportunity to mark the illegal drug in the place where accused was arrested because the latter had become hysterical and had caused a commotion. The Supreme Court ruled that while the procedural guidelines laid out in section 21(1), Article II of R.A. 9165 were not strictly complied with, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the illegal drugs used in evidence in this case were duly preserved in consonance with the chain of custody rule. The arresting officer was justified in marking the seized plastic sachet of shabu at the police station, instead of at the scene of the buy-bust operation because he had no choice but to immediately extricate himself and the accused from the crime scene in order to forestall a potentially dangerous situation. Thereafter, the arresting officer turned the illegal drug over to the investigating officer, who then had it tested in the Crime Laboratory Office of the Manila Police District. Substantial compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible. The conviction of the accused was affirmed. People of the Philippines v. Lolita Quesido y Badarang, G.R. No. 189351, April 10, 2013.

R.A. 9165; Dangerous Drugs Law; where seized items deemed admissible in evidence despite failure of arresting officers to comply strictly with the procedural requirements relative to the Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

seizure and custody of the drugs. The accused argued on appeal that the trial court failed to consider the procedural flaws committed by the arresting officers in the seizure and custody of drugs as embodied in section 21, paragraph 1, Article II, of R.A. 9165. Among others, accused allege that no photograph was taken of the items seized from them. In dismissing the appeal of the accused, the Supreme Court held that even if the arresting officers failed to take a photograph of the seized drugs as required, such procedural lapse is not fatal and will not render the items seized inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. For as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken, as in this case, even though the procedural requirements provided for in section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not faithfully observed, the guilt of the accused will not be affected. People of the Philippines v. Gerry Octavio y Florendo and Reynaldo Cariño y Martir, G.R. No. 199219, April 3, 2013.

ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH; E.O. NO. 1, SERIES OF 1986; THE MERE HOLDING OF A POSITION IN THE MARCOS ADMINISTRATION DID NOT NECESSARILY MAKE THE HOLDER A CLOSE ASSOCIATE OF MARCOS. There are two concurring elements that must be present before assets or properties can be considered as illgotten wealth, namely: (a) they must have “originated from the government itself,” and (b) they must have been taken by former President Marcos, his immediate family, relatives, and close associates by illegal means. As can be gleaned from the above, evidentiary substantiation of the allegations of how the wealth was illegally acquired and by whom was necessary. For that purpose, the mere holding of a position in the Marcos administration did not necessarily make the holder a close associate within the context of E.O. No.1. Indeed, a prima facie showing must be made to show that one unlawfully accumulated wealth by virtue of a close association or

CRIMINAL LAW

27

relation with President Marcos and/or his wife. It would not suffice, then, that one served during the administration of President Marcos as a government official or employee. In this case, the Republic particularly insists that Luz Bakunawa served as the Social Secretary or the Assistant Social Secretary of First Lady Marcos, and mentions several other circumstances that indicated her close relationship with the Marcoses. However, Luz Bakunawa maintains that she was not First Lady Marcos’ Social Secretary, but a mere member of the staff of the Social Secretary; and that the assets of the Bakunawas were honestly earned and acquired well within the legitimate income of their businesses. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Sandiganbayan that the evidence of the Republic was able to establish, at best, that Luz Bakunawa had been an employee in Malacañang Palace during the Marcos administration, and did not establish her having a close relationship with the Marcoses, or her having abused her position or employment in order to amass the assets subject of this case. Consequently, Luz Bakunawa could not be considered a close associate or subordinate of the Marcoses within the context of E.O. No. 1 and E.O. No. 2. Republic of the Philippines represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government v. Luz Reyes Bakunawa, et al, G.R. No. 180418, August 28, 2013.

ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; CHAIN OF CUSTODY. The Supreme Court here held that while there were indeed five sachets of suspected shabu sold to the poseur-buyer, there were still more broken links in the chain of custody. In this case, one broken link was that of the turnover of the seized items from the buy-bust team to the police investigator, SPO1 Doria. PO2 Dizon testified that after he placed the marking on the five sachets of suspected shabu, he turned them over to SPO1 Doria and the specimens were submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. However, SPO1 Doria did not testify before the trial court so as to shed light on this matter. Still another broken link was that involving the transfer of the drug specimens from SPO1 Doria to the crime laboratory. P/Sr. Insp. Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

Perez testified that the request for laboratory examination and drug specimens were first received by PO2 Bagaoisan, the Duty Desk Officer. The latter then called her to physically receive the same. However, P/Sr. Insp. Perez stated that she did not actually see if it was SPO1 Doria who transmitted the specimens. She merely relied on the stamp of PO2 Bagaoisan. Furthermore, PO2 Bagaoisan was not presented in court to prove that it was indeed SPO1 Doria who delivered the drug specimens to the crime laboratory. In view of the evident breaks in the chain of custody, very serious doubts arise as to the identity of the seized illegal drugs in this case. Apparently, there can be no absolute certainty if the sachets of shabu seized from the informant were the very same drugs handed by accused-appellant, or, later on, the same drugs transmitted to the crime laboratory and eventually presented before the trial court. Accused-appellant was thus acquitted of the crime charged. People of the Philippines v. Rogelia Jardinel Pepino-Consulta, G.R. No. 191071, 28 August 2013. ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS; ELEMENTS. For the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the following elements must be proved: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. What is material is the proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti. The prosecution duly established the identity of accused-appellant as a drug seller or pusher, through the testimonies of PO2 Ibañez, the poseur-buyer, and PO3 Allauigan, as back-up officer. PO2 Ibañez testified that it was to accused-appellant that he handed the marked Php100.00 bill for the shabu that he bought on March 23, 2007; and that accusedappellant was the one who took out of his coin purse a plastic sachet containing shabu. Both PO2 Ibañez and PO3 Allauigan identified accused-appellant as the one they arrested during the buy-bust operation. Indeed in the instant case, all the elements constituting

CRIMINAL LAW

28

the illegal sale of dangerous drug are present. The sale of shabu was consummated. The alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are mere minor matters, which do not detract from the fact that a buy-bust operation was conducted. People of the Philippines v. Ryan Blanco y Sangkula, G.R. No. 193661, August 14, 2013.

RA 3019, SEC. 3(E); ELEMENTS. The elements of the crime charged under section 3(e) of RA 3019 are as follows: 1. The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; 2. He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3. His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan correctly found the concurrence of the three elements. First, petitioner, being the city engineer of Cebu, is undisputedly a public officer. Second, the failure of petitioner to validate the ownership of the land on which the canal was to be built because of his unfounded belief that it was public land constitutes gross inexcusable negligence. In his own testimony, petitioner impliedly admitted that it fell squarely under his duties to check the ownership of the land with the Register of Deeds. Yet he concluded that it was public land based solely on his evaluation of its appearance, i.e. that it looked swampy. Moreover, the undue injury to private complainant was established. The cutting down of her palm trees and the construction of the canal were all done without her approval and consent. As a result, she lost income from the sale of the palm leaves. She also lost control and use of a part of her land. The damage to private complainant did not end with the canal’s construction. Informal settlers dirtied her private property by using the canal constructed thereon as their lavatory, washroom, and waste disposal site. Antonio B. Sanchez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187340, August 14, 2013.

Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT; SECTION 3(E) OFFENSE; ELEMENTS. In all, the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Sandiganbayan committed reversible errors in finding him guilty of the violating section 3(e) of R.A. 3019. For the aforecited provision to lie against the petitioner, the following elements must concur: 1) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions; 2) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and 3) That his action caused undue injury to any party, including the government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 may be committed either by dolo, as when the accused acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality, or by culpa, as when the accused committed gross inexcusable negligence. Jovito C. Plameras v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187268, September 4, 2013.

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT; SECTION 3(E) OFFENSE; ELEMENTS. As correctly observed by the Sandiganbayan, certain established rules, regulations and policies of the Commission on Audit and those mandated under the Local Government Code of 1991 were knowingly sidestepped and ignored by the petitioner which enabled CKL Enterprises/Dela Cruz to successfully get full payment for the school desks and armchairs, despite non-delivery – an act or omission evidencing bad faith and manifest partiality. It must be borne to mind that any procurement or “acquisition of supplies or property by local government units shall be through competitive public bidding”. The petitioner admitted in his testimony that he is aware of such requirement, however, he proceeded just the same due to the alleged advice of the unnamed DECS representative that there was already a negotiated contract – a representation or misrepresentation he willfully believed in without any verification. As a Governor, he must know that negotiated contract can only be

CRIMINAL LAW

29

resorted to in case of failure of a public bidding. As it is, there is no public bidding to speak of that has been conducted. Intentionally or not, it is his duty to act in a circumspect manner to protect government funds. To do otherwise is gross inexcusable negligence, at the very least, especially so, that petitioner acted on his own initiative and without authorization from the Provincial School Board. Jovito C. Plameras v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187268, September 4, 2013.

ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT; SECTION 3(E) OFFENSE; ELEMENTS. The same thing can be said about the act of petitioner in signing the sales invoice and the bank draft knowing that such documents would cause the withdrawal by CKL Enterprises/Dela Cruz of the corresponding amount covered by the Irrevocable Domestic Letter of Credit. It must be noted that any withdrawal with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) must be accompanied by the appropriate document evidencing deliveries. In signing the draft and sales invoice, petitioner made it possible for CKL Enterprises/Dela Cruz to withdraw the entire P5,666,600.00 without any delivery of the items. As the records would bear, the CKL Enterprises Invoice dated 16 April 1997, contains the signature of the accused as customer. Above the customer’s signature is the phrase: “Received and accepted the above items in good condition.” The significance of the customer’s signature on the invoice is that it initiates the process of releasing the payment to the seller. This is all that the LBP needs in order to release the money alloted for the purchase. Unfortunately, despite receipt of payment, it was almost a year after when delivery of the items was made on a piece meal basissome of which were even defective. The Court, therefore, was not persuaded that petitioner deserves to be exonerated. On the contrary, evidence of undue injury caused to the Province of Antique and giving of unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to CKL Enterprises/DelaCruz committed through gross inexcusable

Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

negligence was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Jovito C. Plameras v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 187268, September 4, 2013.

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE; LEGAL EFFECT OF FAILURE TO PROVE CHAIN OF CUSTODY. The chain of custody rule is a method of authenticating evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. In this case, the Supreme Court found reasonable doubt on the evidence presented to prove an unbroken chain of custody. First, it is not clear from the evidence that the marking, which was done in the police station, was made in the presence of the accused or his representative. Thus, there is already a gap in determining whether the specimens that entered into the chain were actually the ones examined and offered in evidence. Second, the prosecution failed to duly accomplish the Certificate of Inventory and to take photos of the seized items pursuant to the law. There is nothing in the records that would show at least an attempt to comply with this procedural safeguard; neither was there any justifiable reason propounded for failing to do so. Third, the Supreme Court found conflicting testimony and glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the integrity of the handling of the seized drugs. The material inconsistency of who actually received the specimens in the Crime Laboratory creates a cloud of doubt as to whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The gaps in the chain of custody creates a reasonable doubt as to whether the specimens seized from the accused were the same specimens brought to the laboratory and eventually offered in court as evidence. Without adequate proof of the corpus delicti, the conviction cannot stand. People of the Philippines v. Freddy Salonga y Afiado, G.R. No. 194948, September 2, 2013.

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT; CHAIN OF CUSTODY; A 45% DIFFERENCE IN THE REPORTED WEIGHT OF THE DRUGS FROM THE TIME OF THE ARREST TO THE TIME OF THE RECEIPT BY THE LABORATORY FOR TESTING IMPLIES

CRIMINAL LAW

30

TAMPERING OF EVIDENCE. The Court of Appeals said that the chain of custody of the seized drugs does not appear to be unbroken. The Supreme Court (SC) held otherwise. The PDEA report to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, the booking sheet and arrest report, the Certificate of Inventory, and the laboratory examination request all put down the seized shabu as weighing 0.4 gram. The forensic chemist reported and testified, however, that the police actually submitted only 0.2204 gram of shabu for laboratory testing, short by 0.1796 gram from what the police inventoried. It therefore suffered a loss of 45% or nearly half of the original weight. The prosecution has three theories: only two chemists served the entire region giving rise to possible error; the police and the crime laboratory used different weighing scales; and the failure of the laboratory to take into account the weight of the sachet container. But these are mere speculations since none of those involved was willing to admit having committed weighing error. Speculations cannot overcome the concrete evidence that what was seized was not what was forensically tested. This implies tampering with the prosecution evidence. Hence, because of the compromised evidence, the SC did not affirm the conviction of Pornillos. People of the Philippines v. Jovi Pornillos y Hallare, G.R. No. 201109, October 2, 2013.

BP 22; CIVIL ACTION DEEMED INSTITUTED IN THE CRIMINAL CASE. With respect to criminal actions for violation of BP 22, it is explicitly clear that the corresponding civil action is deemed included and that a reservation to file such separately is not allowed. The rule is that every act or omission punishable by law has its accompanying civil liability. The civil aspect of every criminal case is based on the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. If the accused, however, is not found to be criminally liable, it does not necessarily mean that he will not likewise be held civilly liable because extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil action. This rule more specifically applies when (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused was acquitted. The civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a finding in the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Purification F. Felipe, G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013.

BP 22; CIVIL LIABILITY DESPITE ACQUITTAL. If the judgment is of acquittal, the imposition of the civil liability will depend on whether or not the act or omission from which it might arise exists. A person acquitted of a criminal charge, however, is not necessarily civilly free because the quantum of proof required in criminal prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is greater than that required for civil liability (mere preponderance of evidence). In order to be completely free from civil liability, a person’s acquittal must be based on the fact he did not commit the offense. If the acquittal is based merely on reasonable doubt, the accused may still be held civilly liable since this does not mean he did not commit the act complained of. It may only be that the facts proved did not constitute the offense charged. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Purification F. Felipe, G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013.

BP 22; ELEMENTS. The essential elements of the offense of violation of BP 22 are the following: (1) The making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue there were no sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment; and (3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the drawee bank to stop payment. In this case, the

CRIMINAL LAW

31

first and third elements were duly proven during the trial. Among the three (3) elements, the second element is the hardest to prove as it involves a state of mind. Thus, Section 2 of BP 22 creates a presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds which, however, arises only after it is proved that the issuer had received a written notice of dishonor and that within five (5) days from receipt thereof, he failed to pay the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its payment. Accused was acquitted because the element of notice of dishonour was not sufficiently established. Nevertheless, the act or omission from which her civil liability arose, which was the making or the issuing of the subject worthless check, clearly existed. Her acquittal from the criminal charge of BP 22 was based on reasonable doubt and it did not relieve her of the corresponding civil liability. Nissan Gallery-Ortigas v. Purification F. Felipe,G.R. No. 199067, November 11, 2013.

R.A. 3019; ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT; CAUSING UNDUE INJURY. Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 requires the prosecution to prove that the appointments of Dr. Posadas caused “undue injury” to the government or gave him “unwarranted benefits.” The Supreme Court has always interpreted “undue injury” as “actual damage.” What is more, such “actual damage” must not only be capable of proof; it must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. A finding of “undue injury” cannot be based on flimsy and non-substantial evidence or upon speculation, conjecture, or guesswork. The element of undue injury cannot be presumed even after the supposed wrong has been established. It must be proved as one of the elements of the crime. Here, the majority assumed that the payment to Dr. Posadas of P30,000.00 monthly as TMC Project Director caused actual injury to the Government. The record shows, however, that the P247,500.00 payment to him that the COA Resident Auditor disallowed was deducted from his terminal leave benefits. Dr. Roger R. Posadas and Dr. Rolando P. Dayco v.

Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 168951 & G.R. No. 169000, November 27, 2013.

R.A. 7610; SEXUAL ABUSE; COVERAGE. R.A. 7610 defines and penalizes child prostitution and other sexual abuse. Sexual abuse includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children. Lascivious conduct means the intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. People of the Philippines v. Doney Gaduyon y Tapispisan, G.R. No. 181473, November 11, 2013.

R.A. 7610; SEXUAL ABUSE; ELEMENTS. In Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, the following requisites must concur: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female is below eighteen (18) years of age. This paragraph “punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuse. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.” People of the Philippines v. Doney Gaduyon y Tapispisan, G.R. No. 181473, November 11, 2013.

R.A. 9165; DANGEROUS DRUG ACT; CHAIN OF CUSTODY; PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. The law excuses non-compliance

CRIMINAL LAW

32

under justifiable grounds. However, whatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation in this case from complying with section 21 will remain unknown, because appellant did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Indeed, the police officers’ alleged violations of sections 21 and 86 of R.A. 9165 were not raised before the trial court but were instead raised for the first time on appeal. In no instance did appellant least intimate at the trial court that there were lapses in the safekeeping of seized items that affected their integrity and evidentiary value. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. People of the Philippines v. Marilyn Santos, et al., G.R. No. 193190, November 13, 2013.

R.A. 9165; DANGEROUS DRUG ACT; WHERE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATORY CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULES MAY BE EXCUSED. Non-compliance with section 21 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized inadmissible because what is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Moreover, despite the seemingly mandatory language used in the procedural rule at issue, a perusal of section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 reveals the existence of a clause which may render non-compliance with said procedural rule nonprejudicial to the prosecution of drug offenses. Essentially, section 21(1) of R.A. 9165 ensures that the chain of custody of the seized drugs to be used in evidence must be complete and unbroken. In the case at bar, appellant’s argument that the arresting officers involved were not able to strictly comply with the procedural guidelines stated in section 21(1) did not absolve her because, notwithstanding the procedural error, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the illegal Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

drugs used in this case were duly preserved and the chain of custody of said evidence was shown to be unbroken. People of the Philippines

CRIMINAL LAW

v. Marissa Castillo y Alignay, G.R. No. 190180, November 27, 2013.

R.A. 9165; DANGEROUS DRUG ACT; SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS; ELEMENTS. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof.” 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. The seemingly incompatible statements of PO2 Aninias and SPO2 Male did not destroy their credibility. Brushing aside the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the Supreme Court found that the testimonial evidence of the prosecution duly established the fact that appellants sold to PO2 Aninias, the poseurbuyer, six heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets that contained white crystalline substance that later tested positive for shabu. Thus, the elements of the crime charged had been sufficiently established. People of the Philippines v. Marilyn Santos, et al, G.R. No. 193190, November 13, 2013.

Prof. Roland Ysrael R. Atienza | Latest Supreme Court Decisions

33