DANGEROUS DRUGS CASES

1.

People Vs Farhad Hatani

3.

People Vs John Brian Amarillo

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

Appellant also finds it strange that considering the acts allegedly

committed by him against Precila, the medico-legal report fails to specify any
injuries on the body of Precila. Appellant need not inflict heavy blows on Precila
for the simple reason that she was under sedation. The absence of the injuries
does not negate the commission of rape (People v. Torrevillas, 203 SCRA 576
[1991]; People v. Arenas, 198 172 [1991]) for rape may be committed after
rendering a woman unconscious (Art. 335, Revised Penal Code; People v.
Gerones, 193 SCRA 263 [1991]).
Appellant alleges that Precila was no longer a virgin on that fateful day and that
her bleeding was actually the start of her menstrual cycle. It is settled
jurisprudence that virginity is not an essential element of rape

2.

(b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing.18
And, to secure conviction, it is material to establish that the transaction or
sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the corpus delicti as
evidence.19

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;

People Vs Juan Mendoza

(b) such possession [was] not authorized by law; and

In crimes involving the sale of illegal drugs, two essential elements must be
satisfied:
(1) identities of the buyer, the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[14]

In the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, on the other hand,
it must be shown that:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a
prohibited or a regulated drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.[15]

a.
b.
c.
d.

In the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation, the following links must be

established:
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.[18]

There is no break in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs

from the time that it came to the possession of PO2 Antolin to the point
when such items were presented and identified during trial. Clearly, there
is no doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
dangerous drug were properly preserved, in compliance with what the law
requires.

(c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug."

Section 21, Article II of the (IRR) of R.A. 9165 specifically provides:

The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the

drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.

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-appellants
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible.

The Court has long settled that an accused may still be found
guilty, despite the failure to faithfully observe the requirements
provided under Sec. 21 of RA 9165, for as long as the chain
of custody remains unbroken.

The doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance

of official duty is likewise applicable in the instant case there
being no showing of any ill motive on the part of the arresting
officers to falsely accuse accused-appellant of the crimes
charged.

4.

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,

2.

from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to

safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.

3.

Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include:

People Vs Domingo Sabardan

The case for the prosecution was not enfeebled by its failure
to adduce in evidence the substance or drug which the
appellant forced Richelle to drink and which made her dizzy
and unconscious, or its failure to present an expert witness to
testify on the presence of any sedative in the beer and juice
which Richelle was made to drink:
a.

b.

First. The drug or substance in question is

only corroborative to Richelles testimony
that she became dizzy and unconscious
when the appellant forced her to drink beer
and juice.
Second. In People vs. Del Rosario,27 we
held that a test to determine the presence
of any sedative or drug in the drinks given
to a victim is not an indispensable element
in the prosecution for rape

It is well settled that healed lacerations do not necessarily

negate rape

Religiosity is not always a badge of good conduct and faith is

no guarantee against any sexual perversion. In the case
of People vs. Diopita,39 this Court pronounced that an
accused is not entitled to an acquittal simply because he is of
good moral character and exemplary conduct.

5.

1.

People Vs Marco Alejandro

in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following

essential elements must be proven:

a.

the identity and signature of the person who held temporary

custody of the seized item,

b.

the date and time when such transfer of custody were made
in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,

c.

and the final disposition.

Section 21, Article II of the (IRR) of R.A. 9165 specifically provides:

The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public
official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof.

In this case, while SPO1 Cariaso testified that he immediately marked the transparent
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance sold to him by appellant, there
was no statement as to whether such marking was made at the place of arrest. From
the records it is clear that such marking was done upon reaching the PDEA office
before its turnover to the investigator on duty.

Time and again, jurisprudence is consistent in stating that substantial

compliance with the procedural aspect of the chain of custody rule does
not necessarily render the seized drug items inadmissible.

In the instant case, although the police officers did not strictly comply with
the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, their
noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized
from appellant as the chain of custody of the evidence was shown to be
unbroken under the circumstances of the case.

(1) that the transaction or sale took place;

(2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and
(3) that the buyer and seller were identified.

sale of dangerous drugs in a buy-bust operation is proof of the

concurrence of all the elements of the offense, to wit:
the LINKS that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation to be as follows:
(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.26

chain of custody" is defined as

1.

first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer;

2.

second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer;

3.

third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and

4.

fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court.32

While the marking was not immediately made at the crime scene, it does
not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody as long as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved.33

(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.18

The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the

investigator and the receiving clerk of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory
is not a crucial point against the prosecution.

6.

People Vs Romeo Oniza

Compliance with Section 21, Article II of the (IRR) of R.A.

9165, especially the required physical inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs in the presence of the
accused, the media, and responsible government
functionaries, would be clear evidence that the police had
carried out a legitimate buy-bust operation. Here, the
prosecution was unable to adduce such evidence, indicating
that the police officers did not at all comply with prescribed
procedures. Worse, they offered no excuse or explanation at
the hearing of the case for their blatant omission of what the
law required of them.

the prosecution carried the burden of establishing the chain

of custody of the dangerous drugs that the police allegedly
seized

the LINKS that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust
situation to be as follows:
1.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding
possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.48 It must rest on
its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. If the prosecution
fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even
present evidence on its own behalf, in which case, the presumption prevails and the
accused should necessarily be acquitted.49
In this case, the prosecution failed to overcome such presumption when it presented
inconsistent versions of an illegal sale.

Inconsistencies of the prosecution witnesses referring to the events that

transpired in the buy-bust operation can overturn the judgment of
conviction. As held in Zaragga v. People,61 material inconsistencies with
regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the
lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the
identity of the corpus delicti.

These conflicting statements of the prosecution effectively broke the chain

of custody of evidence of the sale of dangerous drug.

The "objective test" in determining the credibility of prosecution witnesses

regarding the conduct of buy-bust operation provides that it is the duty of
the prosecution to present a complete picture detailing the buy-bust
operation

first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer;

a.

from the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the

pusher,

XPNs:

b.

the offer to purchase,

c.

the promise or payment of the consideration,

d.

until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the

illegal subject of sale

(a) there must be justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the

procedures; and
(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved.

MEDICO LEGAL ASPECT OF DEATH

2.

second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officer;

3.

third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and

4.

fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court.32

1.

Industrial Textile Vs Sofia Florzo And Wcc

In this case, the notice of sickness and the claim for
compensation were filed beyond the statutory limits

7.

"Failure to [give] or delay in giving notice shall not be a

bar to the proceeding ... if it is shown that the employer,
his agent or representative had knowledge of the
accident ..."

People Vs Jose Clara

To prove illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be present:

Dr. Pedro P. Solis explained that:

said accused as the perpetrator is positive Identification which will

defeat the defense of alibi put up by the accused.
a.

b.

"even if the stomach is not empty, the frequent stress

brought about by lifting heavy objects ... might produce
an ulcer in the stomach, and this is known in medicine
as stress ulcer".

3.

People Vs Timoteo Tolentino

According to the appellant, the finding of the trial court to the
effect that the wound located at the back of the victim's head
was caused by a stone is erroneous as the same is not
supported or confirmed by the finding of the medicolegal officer
and his expert testimony before the lower court.

Further, the effect of continuous work on a person with

a stomach ulcer, so Dr. Solis added, is that "It will
aggravate the deceased condition of the stomach, and
most likely, it may produce hemorrhage which could be
"uncontrollable or controllable". 13

i.

ii.

2.

Commission observes, that "the continuous exertion of

carrying beams during his (deceased's) employment
gradually, if imperceptibly, resulted to his illness
causing paralyzation of half of his body and ultimately
his death". 14

in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary,

that the claim is compensable. 15 The burden to
disconnect by substantial evidence, the injury or
sickness from employment, is laid at the employer's
door. 16 Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. So
rigid is the rule that even where the cause of the
employee's death is unknown as petitioner claims
the right to compensation subsists. 17 Reason for this is
that the Workmen's Compensation Act is a social
legislation; it is designed to give relief to the workman;
therefore, to effectuate its purpose, it must be liberally
construed. 1

People Vs Carlos Colinares

In finding the accused guilty, the lower court relied heavily on the
positive Identification by government of the accused as the
perpetrator of the alleged mauling incident equating it also as a
positive Identification of the same accused as the one who killed
Armando Cardenas. Such inference has no legal and/or factual
basis. It is noted that the lower court admitted in its decision that
there is "no evidence presented to show where the crime took place
and who inflicted the fatal wounds sustained by Armando
Cardenas,"

To uphold a judgment of conviction on circumstantial evidence,

the circumstances must be
"an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable
conclusion, which points to the defendant to the exclusion of all
others, as the guilty person. (U.S. vs. Villar, 6 Phil. 510; People vs.
Subano, 73 Phil. 692).
It would have been a different judgment if the prosecution
witnesses saw herein accused kill the victim and testified thereon.
Such would have been positive evidence because his pointing to

medicolegal officer testified that the fatal injury

sustained by the deceased at the back of the
head was caused by a sharp instrument
the allegation of another prosecution witness,
Bienvenido Ferrer in his sworn statement to the
effect that the accused came from behind the
victim and threw a stone hitting the back of the
latter's head and causing him to fall on the
cemented ground

Ferrer's testimony thus finds no corroboration even from the opinion

given by the medicolegal officer who was presented by the
prosecution itself to testify on the cause of the victim's injuries.

In this jurisdiction, expert opinion constitutes one of the few

exceptions to the general rule that a mere opinion of a witness
regarding a particular matter is not admissible. In this connection,
Rule 130, Section 43 provides: "The opinion of a witness regarding
a question of science, art or trade, when he is skilled therein, may
be received in evidence."

In the field of medicine, opinions of doctors qualified by training and

experience as to causation are competent and in many cases
controlling and binding upon the court

In this case, Dr. Blanco's opinion as to the cause of the victim's

injuries should be accorded great respect, it being peculiarly within
the expertise of medical practitioners.

While circumstantial evidence may suffice to support a conviction, it is

imperative, though, that the following requisites should concur:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond a reasonable doubt [Rule 133, Section 5 of the Revised
Rules of Court.]

For the well-entrenched rule in evidence is that:

"before conviction can be had upon circumstantial evidence,
the circumstances proved should constitute an unbroken
chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion
pointing to the defendant, to the exclusion of all others, as the
author of the crime'

4.

f.

April Joy Asetre Vs Junel Asetre

In this case, the prosecutor rejected petitioners suicide theory
because it is inconsistent with the medico-legal findings that
while Hanz might have wanted to end his life, the
circumstances of his death proved he could not have done it
himself. The prosecutor explained that the possibility of murder
is not negated even if Hanz sustained no wounds or injuries,
since he had been drinking shortly before his death which
could have rendered him too drunk to be aware that he was
being strangled.

e.

In this case the circumstantial evidence presented by the

prosecution does not conclusively point to the liability of the
accused for the crime charged

DOJ Secretary Gutierrez explained that while there is

overwhelming proof that Hanz might not have committed
suicide, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence that
could link petitioners as the authors of the crime. She
reasoned in this wise:
(1) the prosecution failed to establish petitioners motive to kill
Hanz;
(2) the alleged quarrel incident of the spouses was not
substantiated
(3) Aprils actuations during the incident should not be taken
against her as there is no standard human behavioral
response when one is confronted with a strange or frightful
experience;
(4) even her actuations after the incident, like burning the
bed sheets and alleged suicide letters of Hanz, and her
opposition to the exhumation/autopsy of Hanzs body
because they could only traumatize her and her children,
could not cast doubt on Aprils innocent intentions. An
ordinary person like her could believe that the police
investigation done at the time of the incident and the initial
post-mortem examination on Hanzs body were more than
enough to conclude and close the investigation;
(5) even the apparent inconsistent testimonies of the other
petitioners on their participation during the incident could not
be taken against them because witnesses to a stirring
incident could see differently some details thereof due in large
part to excitement and confusion that such an incident usually
brings.

5.

It pointed to depression as the antecedent

cause, implying that Hanz committed
suicide.
Thus, the appellate court lacks sufficient
basis to conclude that it was improbable for
Hanz to commit suicide based on the
opinions of the three doctors.

2.

evidence is inconclusive.

3.

finding that there was conspiracy to kill Hanz is not

supported by any evidence on record and hence
must be discarded

DOJ Secretary correctly held that the circumstantial evidence

presented by private respondents to prove probable cause
against petitioners, does not support the theory of conspiracy to
commit murder.

Visayan Stevedore Vs Wcc

medicolegal officer of the Iloilo City Police Department, traced

the cause of Eduardo Labiyo's death to "bangungot."
Compensability of Eduardo Labiyo's death:

"(It) is to be presumed, under section 44 of the Workmen's

Compensation Act, as amended, that the employee's death,
supervening at the time of his employment, either arose out
of, or was at least aggravated by said employment. With this
legal presumption the burden of proof shifts to the employer,
and the employee is relieved of the burden to show
causation. ... The mere opinion of doctors presented by
petitioner as evidence cannot prevail over the presumption
established by law." (Abana vs. Quisumbing, 22 SCRA 1278,
1282)

when an employee undertakes to satisfy, in the course of

employment, certain human wants, i.e. eating, freshening up,
sleeping and the like, "and something takes place that may
cause injury, harm or death to the employee or laborer, it is
fair and logical that

the Secretary of Justice committed no grave abuse of

discretion:

> the happening be considered as one occurring

in the course of employment for under the circumstances it
cannot be undertaken in any other way"
1.

First,
a.

b.
c.
d.

the private physician who signed the death

certificate, and, the medico-legal officer
who conducted the post-mortem autopsy
on Hanzs body, are not expert witnesses,
nor were they offered to testify as medicolegal experts.
medico-legal officer who prepared the
exhumation report is also not a forensic
expert.
They never opined that it was improbable
for the deceased to have committed
suicide.
The death certificate signed by Dr.
Gonzaga indicated asphyxia secondary to
strangulation as the cause of death,
without explaining whether it was suicide or
not.

>unless it can be clearly shown that the mishap

occurred because the employee acted beyond his duty or
outside the course of employment, which is not so in the case
at bar.

6.

There was hardly anything else that would disconnect the

deceased's death from his employment, In other words,
petitioner had not proved that death was not and could not be
caused or aggravated by the deceased's work as engineer
who, at the time of his death, was practically on 24-hour
continuous duty.
Seven-Up Bottling Company Vs Wcc

testimony of Dr. Teodoro Centeno:

the cause of death was found to be "asphyxia compatible with

strangulation." 5

did not find any trace of liquor in the body of the late William
Peaflorida and that the hand grenade "could have been thrown
from somewhere."

7.

>Dr. Renato Bautista, the Medico-Legal Officer of the NBI,

concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia compatible with
strangulation.

Evidently the medico-legal officer arrived at the conclusion

that there was no trace of liquor in the body of the late William
Peaflorida because of the absence of alcoholic odor in his
breath. There is no showing that the deceased's stomach or
intestines were opened and their contents analyzed for
possible alcohol contents. Since he was already dead it was
impossible to detect the presence of alcohol in his breath.
The means employed by the doctor in arriving at his
conclusion was inherently unreliable, and his testimony does
not meet the test of substantiality of the evidence, let alone its
sufficiency to contradict the police investigation report and the
positive testimony of Victorino Trespeces.

>the post-mortem investigation on the cadaver conducted by the

NBI was decidedly more extensive and exhaustive than the cursory
examination previously made by the police.
The rules of Court, on circumstantial evidence, provides:
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

Dr. Centeno's testimony on this point is merely a conjecture,

an inference without logical basis. Again it cannot be given
any weight in the face of the testimony of Trespeces. Even in
itself alone it cannot be considered substantial evidence.
People Vs Ronald De Vera

1.

In the medico-legal examination conducted on 04 October 1990, by

the police, the cause of death was said to be asphyxia by hanging. 2

2.

("NBI"), at the request of the Commission on Human

Rights, 3 undertook its own investigation of the case. Irma's body
was exhumed, and a second autopsy was conducted. 4 This time,

1.

There is more than one circumstance;

2.

The facts from which the inferences are

derived are proven; and

3.

The combination of all the

circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. 14

All the above, taken collectively, sufficiently constituted an unbroken

chain of events that indeed would point to accused-appellant, to the
exclusion of all others, to be the author of the crime. 16