PP v. del Monte / G.R. No.

179940 / April 23, 2008

FACTS:
Norberto del Monte was charged with violation 5.3 Article II of Republic Act No.
9165, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The prosecution presented as its lone witness PO1 Gaudencio M. Tolentino, Jr., t
he poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted against appellant.
On 10 December 2002, at around 3:00 o clock in the afternoon, an informant togethe
r with Tolentino went to buy shabu to del Monte. Tolentino gave appellant P300.0
0 consisting of three marked P100 bills. Upon receiving the P300.00, del Monte t
ook out a plastic sachet from his pocket and handed it over to Tolentino. As a p
re-arranged signal, Tolentino lit a cigarette signifying that the sale had been
consummated. PO1 Antonio Barreras arrived, arrested del Monte and recovered the
marked money. A lab report confirms that the substance traded was indeed shabu.
For the defense, the del Monte took the witness stand, together with his commonlaw wife, Amelia Mendoza; and nephew, Alejandro Lim.
Del Monte said that on that day a commotion woke him up. Mendoza, Lim, and a nie
ce was being assaulted by Tolentino and Barreras. Both policemen, then, tried to
bribe them for their liberty.
The trial court sentenced del Monte life imprisonment and P5,000,000.00 fine. Th
e trial court found the lone testimony of PO1 Gaudencio M. Tolentino, Jr. to be
credible and straightforward and was not convinced by appellant s defense of frame
-up and denial.
Del Monte filed a petition on the Court of Appeals which was also denied but the
fine was slashed to P500,000.00.
Del Monte filed another appeal that was forwarded to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Norberto del Monte was guilty of violating 5.3 Article II
of Republic Act No. 9165.
RULING:
Del Monte argued that the officers failed to comply with Section 21 OF RA 9165.
He claims that pictures of him together with the alleged confiscated shabu were
not taken immediately upon his arrest and they did not conduct a physical inven
tory of the same in his presence as shown by their joint affidavit of arrest, th
us casting doubt on both his arrest and the admissibility of the evidence adduce
d against him.
The Court said that del Monte cannot raise that argument anymore as he is too la
te. The Court also said that the non-compliance will not render the drugs inadmi
ssible in evidence. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dang
erous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupl
ed with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.
Thus, the petition of Norberto del Monte was denied.
PP v. Suson / G.R. No. 152848 / July 12, 2006
FACTS:
SPO2 Alice Patio made a buy-bust operation on Teresita Suson and Antonio Fortich.
After giving the marked money to Suson, Suson entered her house. She came out w
ith Fortich, who then, gave her 3 packs of shabu and left the house/ After doing
the pre-arranged signal (combing her hair), the officers arrest Fortich. It was
confirmed that it was shabu after submitting it to the PNP Crime Lab. Later, th
e police were able to secure a search warrant for Suson s house and recovered the
marked money given by Suson.
Petitioners contend that no buy-bust operation occurred and that the evidence wa
s planted.
The trial court found them guilty of violating Section 15, Article III, in relat
ion to Section 21, Article IV of Republic Act 6425. The trial court pointed out
that the log book of Suson corroborates their transaction.
Petitioners filed a petition in the Court of Appeals which was denied.
ISSUE: Whether or not appellants are guilty of violating RA 6425.
RULING:
One of the petitioner s contention was that the testimony of Patino and the RTC wa
s different regarding Fortiche s whereabouts after the giving of the marked money.

The Court pointed out that what controls are the Transcript of Stenographic No
tes and not the findings in those transcripts.
The Court also pointed out that there is physical evidence supporting their conv
iction. Petitioners claim that the RTC decision is contrary to law. They still c
onsidered the shabu even though the officers failed to submit an inventory of th
e confiscated. The Court stated that there was no lack of inventory and that it
is not even required.
Petitioners also argue that the marked money allegedly used in the buy-bust was
not officially marked since the same was merely recorded in a private logbook. T
he Court countered that recording of money is not one of the elements for the pr
osecution of sale of illegal drugs.
Petitioners also deny that a buy-bust operation took place and claim that the ev
idence against them is planted evidence. The Court was not convinced and reasone
d that denial is a common weak defense, especially when not supported by evidenc
e, in most prosecutions in relation to the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Thus, the decision of the trial was affirmed.
PP v. Tira / G.R. No. 139615 / May 28, 2004
FACTS:
Pangasinan Police held surveillance operations on appellants Amadeo and Connie T
ira for drug activities. After a few days of surveying, the police got the warra
nt and searched the Tira s house. The police found a number of drugs, some paraphe
rnalia, and money that was assumed to have gotten from the trades which was hidd
en under the bed Amadeo was sleeping in.
Amadeo, in his defense, said that the house the police searched was rented by hi
s nephew, Chris Tira, and his live-in partner, Gemma Lim. The trial court convic
ted him for possession of illegal drugs. The court did not believe Amadeo s statem
ent because it was not substantiated.
Connie, like Amadeo s defense, said that policemen searched the rented house and s
eized items that were owned by the boarders. She was also not believed by the tr
ial court and said that as husband and wife, Connie would not have known the dru
gs in their house.
ISSUE: Whether or not the spouses Tira are guilty of illegal possession of drugs
.
RULING:
The appellants had three appeals. First, they pointed out that the trial court f
ailed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Second, that the search was
illegally made. Third, assuming Amadeo was guilty, the trial court was mistaken
when they reasoned out that there was conspiracy between the spouses.
The appellants claim that the police violated Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules o
f Criminal Procedure. They insist that the drugs cannot be assumed that the Tira
controlled it as the room was occupied others. The Court found this appeal with
out merit. Like the trial court, the Court did not believe that there were board
ers living on the other room. The drugs were found under the bed of the appellan
t. The Court also pointed out that there were other witnesses during the search.
The Court said that to be convicted in violation of RA 6425, one should, freely,
consciously, and unlawfully possess the illegal drug. Because the drug was foun
d under the bed of Amadeo, it should tell that they had control of the drugs. Co
nnie was still found guilty because as a housewife she had access the house with
out restriction
Hence, the spouses Tira was found guilty and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua
and a fine of P1,000,000.00 for violating Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act No.
6425 and an indeterminate penalty of from Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of ar
resto mayor in its medium period as minimum, to Three (3) years of prision corre
ccional for violating Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425.
PP v. Peralta / G.R. No. 173472 / February 26, 2010

FACTS:
SPO1 Alberto Sangalang acted as poseur-buyer on a buy-bust operation against Elm
er Peralta. After sending out the signal, Peralta was arrested. The police took
the marked money and Peralta was brought to the station. The sachets of shabu wa
s marked and was sent to the PNP Laboratory. It was tested positive for shabu.
The prosecution only presented Sangalang and the forensic chemist.
Peralta claimed that on that day, when he was about to sleep, four policemen for
cibly opened his door, handcuffed him, and brought to the station.
The RTC found him guilty as well as the Court of Appeals. They found Sangalang s t
estimony was enough as it did not deviate from his regular performance while Per
alta s defense was considered weak.
ISSUE: Whether Elmer Peralta was convicted beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to show the chain of custody or that
they followed the procedure that has been prescribed in connection with the sei
zure and custody of drugs. There was doubt who and when the sachets of shabu we
re marked.
There were also doubts on the sealing of the sachets. It was not stated whether
the articles was properly sealed from the time of the arrest. There was doubt wh
en the sachets of shabu existed.
Hence, petitioner is acquitted of the charges against him.
PP v. Gutierrez / G.R. No. 179213 / September 3, 2009
FACTS:
A buy-bust operation conducted by SPO3 Leneal Matias was held against petitioner
Nicolas Gutierrez. Heeding the pre-arranged signal, the other members of the te
am closed in and arrested Gutierrez. Other members marked the seized items.
In Gutierrez account, at that time, he was having dinner with his family when fou
r armed men brought him to the police precinct. He was shown a plastic sachet an
d threatened him to be charged if he does not pay P20,000.00. He was charged aft
er he failed to pay.
The RTC and the Court of Appeals found him guilty.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, he argues thathe was a victim of warrantl
ess search and arrest and that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the policemen.
ISSUE: Whether Nicolas Gutierrez was convicted beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
The Court stated that what is important for the prosecution of someone charged w
ith violations of RA 9165, there should be the corpus delicti or the drugs itsel
f.
The Court finds that the evidence for the prosecution failed to establish the ch
ain of custody of the allegedly seized shabu. Although there are the laboratory
results confirming the drugs, there was statement on how the evidence was handl
ed before it came to the forensic chemist. There was doubt whether the evidence
sent to the laboratory and the one presented in court was the same.
Hence, beyond reasonable doubt was not proven and petitioner was acquitted.
PP v. Obmiranis / G.R. No. 181492 / December 16, 2008
FACTS:
Policeman Jerry Velasco held a buy-bust operation against Samuel Obmiranis. When
he was arrested, Wilfredo Cinco seized the plastic sachet from him that contain
ed shabu and marked it with SOO . On trial, Velascoadmitted that there was no evide
nce custodian designated and that he could not remember if the seized item had b
een inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused. The laboratory
results came back and were confirmed of shabu.
In his defense, Obmiranis claims that he was arrested, while waiting for his gir
lfriend, by Velasco and others the night before the said buy-bust operation. Th
ey asked for P200,000.00 and if not he should find for the officers a large-scal
e drug pusher. When he failed to, he was sent to the UN Avenue police station an

d was detained. Again, he was asked for money to mitigate his crime.
The RTC found him guilty. In his petition to the Court of Appeals, they said tha
t even though all the essential elements of a consummated sale of dangerous drug
had not been completely shown was immaterial because the charge involved a mere
attempt or offer to sell which had been duly established by the prosecution. Th
ey also said that the chain of custody was also maintained. The CA affirmed the
trial court s decision.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
The Court found that the police did not follow the chain of cutody. If it was fo
llowed, every person who held the evidence can provide testimony which was not d
one. The testimony of Velasco was also unsure and proved that some important ste
ps in a buy-operation were passed.
The prosecution was unable to establish the identity of the dangerous drug and i
n effect failed to obliterate the hypothesis of appellant s guiltlessness.
The Court also had their doubts whether the evidence that was found on the Obrim
anis was also the evidence presented in court or was even a real illegal drug fr
om the first place.
The Court also reminded that the prosecution should always rely on the strength
of their evidence and not to the weakness of the defense.
Hence, petitioner was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was acquitte
d.
PP v. de la Cruz / G.R. No. 181545 / October 8, 2008
FACTS:
A buy-bust operation was held against petitioner Mark de la Cruz. P02 Eugene Amo
yo was the designated poseur-buyer. After being arrested, Amoyo seized the two s
achets of shabu. Upon returning to the headquarters, Amoyo placed his marking on
the sachets and gave it to SP04 Jorge Tabayag along with the marked money.
In his defense, de la Cruz claimed that he was only waiting for his brother to d
eliver his boots when a shoot-out commenced between the police and Amay who he k
new. After the shoot-out and Amay having escaped, he was the one arrested becaus
e he knew Amay.
The RTC found him guilty and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision through
a petition. The Office of the Solicitor General had the same decision citing tha
t petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto.
ISSUE: Whether Mark de la Cruz is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
The Court believes that the prosecution failed to clearly establish the chain of
custody of the seized plastic sachets containing shabu from the time they were
first allegedly received until they were brought to the police investigator.
Amoyo testified that he failed to place any marking on the sachets of shabu imme
diately after the apprehension of appellant. In fact, Amoyo admitted that he on
ly placed his markings upon being ordered by Tabayag.
Moreover, no other witness was presented to testify or to fill the gap from the
time Tabayag received the sachets of shabu from Amoyo up to the time they were d
elivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory. There was also no physical inventory and p
hotograph of the items allegedly confiscated from appellant.
Hence, petitioner was acquitted having his guilty not proven beyond reasonable d
oubt.
PP v. Bondad / G.R. No. 173804 / December 10, 2008
FACTS:
Elpidio Bondad, Jr was caught in a buy-bust operation selling shabu.
The illegal drugs were inside a Vicks container. PO2 Dano placed the markings EB
B-ED BUYBUST 01/29/04 on the substance-filled sachet sold to him, and EBB-ED, POS
1 and 2, 01/29/04 on the sachets that remained inside the Vicks container. Bondad w
as brought to the station and was asked for a drug test. The drugs were sent to
the laboratory and was confirmed as shabu.
Bondad s claims that he was forced to come with PO2 Brubio. When Brubio sa

w his son inside the billiard hall, he was made to board a police car.
The RTC found appellant guilty of violating Sec. 5 Art II of RA9165. He
then filed a petition and subsequently affirmed the RTC s decision.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner was guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
The found out that the police violated Sec. 21 of RA 9165. The police di
d not take photogaphs of the illegal drugs on the scene and there was no represe
ntative from the media or a public officer to sign the copy of the inventory of
the seized items.
The Court reasoned that what is important is the integrity of the illega
l drugs, if it was the same drugs from the start.
Hence, the RTC s decision was reversed and petitioner was acquitted.
PP v. Sanchez / G.R. No. 175832 / October 15, 2008
FACTS:
Salvador Sanchez was senteced guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec
tion 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002), meriting him the penalty of life imprisonment by the RTC.
He was caught I na buy-bust operation led by SP02 Sevilla. The seized items was
marked by Sevilla and was then brought to the station. The laboratory results c
onfirmed that the illegal drugs were shabu.
Sanchez claim that at that time, he was putting his children to sleep when three
police officers forcibly entered in his house and arrested him. He was detained
without being investigated.
The decision of the RTC was brought to the Court of Appeals through a petition.
Sanchez held that the police violated Sec. 21 Art. II of RA 9165. The Court reas
oned that the corpus delicti was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the essentia
l elements of sale of illegal drugs was present.
RULING: Whether petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
The Court pointed three mistakes by the authorities. First is their non-observan
ce of the requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165. There was no photograph of the seized items during the buy-bust operat
ion and no representative of the media or public officer to sign the inventory o
f the seized items. The non-observance of the rule creates doubt on the integrit
y of the seized items whether real or framed. The marking of Sevilla was not ess
ential as he could have done it anytime after the arrest was made.
Second, the chain of custody over the confiscated items was not proven. The chain
of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensur
es that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. In a long li
ne of cases, we have considered it fatal for the prosecution to fail to prove th
at the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly
seized from the accused. There was doubt on the authenticity of the items on who
handled it between the arrest and the court hearing. The testimony of Sevilla s
howed that the handler of the items were unknown.
Hence, the decision of the CA was reversed and the petitioner was acquitted.