PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JEHAR REYES from doubt.

Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain

G.R. No. 199271; October 19, 2016 of custody concerned the absence of any
representative of the media or of the Department of
Ponente: J. Bersamin
Justice (DOJ), and of the elected public official during
AREA: Special Penal Law
the buy-bust operation and at the time of the
confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused
FACTS:
in the area of operation.And, lastly, the arresting
A buy-bust operation was conducted at Reyes officers did not prepare any inventory of the
residence to which Reyes was arrested. PO2 confiscated items, and did not take photographs of the
Villahermosa informed the Reyes he was under arrest, items.
and informed him of his constitutional rights. He frisked
Reyes, and recovered two more plastic packs that
contained a white crystalline substance; and the buy-
bust money of ten P100.00 bills.
Reyes was brought to the police office, and
PO1 Miro marked the items seized. PO1 Miro
prepared the letter-request for laboratory
examination.On 27 November 2002, PO1 Miro
delivered the letter-request for laboratory examination,
and the plastic packs PO1 Fiel, the clerk on duty at the
PNP Crime Laboratory. PO1 Fiel turned over the letter-
request, and the three plastic packs, to the Chemistry
Branch for examination. Jude Daniel Mendoza, the
forensic analyst, conducted the laboratory examination
on the contents of the three plastic packs which tested
positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Reyes
was thereafter charged with violating Article 2, Section
5 of R.A. 9165, or the crime of illegal sale of drugs.

ISSUE:
Is the failure to comply with the chain of
custody warrants acquittal?

HELD:
Yes. The Court resolves to acquit the accused
of the crime ofviolation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165
charged.
To convict the accused for the illegal sale or
the illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the chain of
custody of the dangerous drugs must be clearly and
competently shown because such degree of proof is
what was necessary to establish the corpus delicti.
The Prosecution does not comply with the
requirement of proving the corpus delicti not only when
the dangerous drugs involved are missing but also
when there are substantial gaps in the chain of
custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise
doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in
court.
The chain of custody was not preserved in the
manner required by the aforementioned guidelines
fixed by law. The arresting officers committed serious
lapses that put into grave doubt the integrity of the
evidence presented against the accused.First of all,
the confiscated items were not marked immediately
after the seizure.The inconsistency among the
witnesses of the State could not be dismissed as trivial
or inconsequential in view of the defining role of the
initial marking of the confiscated items.Secondly, the
law specifically required that the marking must be
witnessed by the accused, but there was no credible
showing by the State that the accused had actually
witnessed the process of marking. This meant that the
confiscation of the shabu was not properly insulated
 PEOPLE v. CASACOP

G.R. No. 210454; January 13, 2016

Ponente: J. Perez

AREA: Special Penal Law

FACST:

Upon tip of an informant and surveillance on

Casacop, a buy-bust operation was conducted wherein
Casacop was arrested. Casacop was frisked and an
improvised glass tooter, aluminum foil strip, cigarette
lighter two (2) small heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets, and the marked money was recovered.
Thereafter, Casacop was brought to the police station.
The seized items were examined and confirmed to be
shabu.

An information was filed charging Casacop of

possession of shabu and its paraphernalia and sale of
shabu.

ISSUE:

Is Casacop guilty of the crimes charged?

HELD:

YES. For the successful prosecution of a case

for illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must
be proven: (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. On the
other hand, in prosecuting a case for illegal possession
of dangerous drugs, the following elements must
concur: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or
object, which is identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

In this case, all the elements for the illegal sale

of shabu were established. PO1 Signap, the poseur-
buyer, positively identified Casacop as the person who
sold him the white crystalline substance in one plastic
sachet which was later proven to be positive for
shabu. In exchange for this plastic sachet; PO1 Signap
handed the marked money as payment. The delivery
of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt
by the seller of the marked money successfully
consummated the buy-bust transaction.
All the elements in the prosecution for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs and paraphernalia
were likewise established. Found in Casacop's pocket
after he was caught in flagrante were two (2) more
plastic sachets containing shabu, an improvised glass
tooter containing shabu residue and the rolled
aluminum foil with shabu residue. Under Rule 126,
Section 13, a person lawfully arrested may be
searched for anything which may have been used or
constitute proof in the commission of an offense
without a warrant. There was no showing that Casacop
had legal authority to possess the shabu and its
paraphernalia. Moreover, the fact that these
contraband were found in his physical possession
shows that he freely and consciously possessed them.
PEOPLE
v.
JUAN ASISLO y MATIO,
G.R. No. 206224January 18, 2016
AREA: SPL
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Asislo was charged illegal
delivery and transportation of marijuana under Article
II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.. He was caught in
Baguio by virtue of a buy-bust operation. The accused
questioned his conviction on the ground that there are
lapses in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous
drugs, and the failure of the prosecution to establish
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt
ISSUE:
1) Is the chain of Custody violated?
2) Is the receipt of the buy-bust money
indispensable in the crime of illegal sale of drugs?
HELD:
1) No.
The law itself provided exceptions to the
requirements, the non-compliance with Section 21 of
the IRR is not fatal and does not make the items
seized inadmissible.The most important factor is "the
preservation of the integrity and the evidential value of
the seized items as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
IN the case, the records of the case show that the
authorities were able to preserve the integrity of the
seized marijuana, and establish in the trial that the
links in the chain of custody of the same were not
compromised. While it is true that the drugs were not
marked immediately after its seizure and not in the
presence of the accused, the prosecution was able to
prove, however, that the bricks of marijuana contained
in five sacks and a plastic bag confiscated during the
buy-bust operation were the same items presented
and identified before the court.After the seizure of the
marijuana and the arrest of the accused, IAlNatividad
called PCI Apalla through mobile phone and reported
the operation. Due to the volume of the confiscated
drugs, PCI Apalla ordered IAlNatividad and his
companions to bring the sacks of marijuana to their
field office for proper markings and
documentations. Although it was not specified who
received the items in the laboratory in the testimony of
the prosecution witnesses, the fact that the minute
details of the seized items described in the chemistry
report coincide with the specifications in the inventory
prepared by the PDEA leaves no doubt that the bricks
of marijuana received by the laboratory for
examination were the same drugs seized by the PDEA
agents from Asislo.
2). Yes. In the crime of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the
poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the
marked money consummate the illegal transaction. In
the case at bar, the sale was not consummated since
there was no receipt of the consideration. IA1
Natividad arrested Asislo immediately after the latter
opened one of the sacks loaded with bricks of PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
marijuana. It was also admitted that the agents did not v.
prepare marked money for the buy-bust GLEN PIAD y BORI, RENATO
operation.Nevertheless, Asislo can still be liable for VILLAROSA y PLATINO and NILO DA
violation of Article II, Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 for VIS y ARTIGA,
illegal delivery and transportation of marijuana.The
essential element of the charge of illegal transportation G.R. No. 213607, January 25, 2016
of dangerous drugs is the movement of the dangerous
drug from one place to another. AREA: SPL

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Piad was charged in two

(2) informations with the crimes of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs weighing 0.05 gram and illegal
possession of dangerous drugs weighing 0.06 gram.
While accused-appellant Villarosa, Carbo and Davis
were charged in two (2) informations with the crimes of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs during a party
weighing 0.03 gram and illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia during a party.

ISSUE:

Is the accused-appellants guilty of the crime

charged?

HELD:

Yes.

Piadwas properly convicted of the crime of

illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It was proven that, on
April 23, 2005, the police went to his house to conduct
a buy-bust operation; that PO1 Arevalo acted as the
poseur-buyer; and that when PO1 Arevalo gave the
marked money to Piad, the latter handed to him a
small plastic sachet. A laboratory examination
confirmed that the plastic sachet contained 0.05 gram
of shabu. Clearly, all the elements of the said crime
were established.

The prosecution was also able to prove that

Piad committed the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. When he was arrested in flagrante
delicto, he was asked about the source of his drugs.
He then brought out a metal box, which contained two
(2) more sachets. It was confirmed in a laboratory test
that these sachets contained 0.06 gram of shabu.With
respect to the crime of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs during a party and the crime of illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia during a party, the
prosecution also established that after the arrest of
Piad, the team found Villarosa, Carbo and Davis sitting
on the floor and surrounded by one (1) heat-sealed
sachet and two (2) unsealed sachets. A laboratory
report showed that these sachets contained a total of
0.03 gram of shabu. The said persons were also found
with an aluminum foil, a tooter and disposable lighters,
which were considered drug paraphernalia. As
correctly held by the RTC, the elements of such crimes
were proven because there was a proximate company
of at least two (2) persons without any legal authority
to possess the illicit items. It is also found that the
apprehending officers substantially complied with the
duty of preserving the seized items. Evidently, the law
requires "substantial" and not necessarily "perfect
adherence" as long as it can be proven that the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
were preserved as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused
With respect to Davis, theCA should not have
entertained the appeal of Davis. Once an accused
escapes from prison or confinement, jumps bail, as in
this case, or flees to a foreign country, he loses his
standing in court. Unless he surrenders or submits to
the jurisdiction of the court, he is deemed to have
waived any right to seek relief from the court. As no
such surrender was made in this case, in the eyes of
the law, Davis is a fugitive from justice and, therefore,
not entitled to seek relief from the courts.
AMADO I. SARAUM
v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 205472, January 25, 2016
AREA: Special Penal Law
FACTS:
On the 17th day of August, 2006, at about
12:45 A.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines,the said
accused was caught by virtue of a buy-bust operation,
with deliberate intent, and without being authorized by
law, did then and there have in his possession the
following:1 = One (1) lighter; 2 = One (1) rolled tissue
paper; and 3 = One (1) aluminum tin foilwhich are
instruments and/or equipments fit or intended for
smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting, or
introducing any dangerous drug into the body.
Thus, Saraum was charged with violation of
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. By way
of defense, Saraum denied the commission of the
alleged offense. He testified that on the date and time
in question, he was passing by Lorega Cemetery on
his way to the house of his parents-in-law when he
was held by men with firearms. Believing that he had
not committed anything illegal, he resisted the arrest.
He learned of the criminal charge only when he was
brought to the court.
ISSUE:
Is the conviction proper considering that the
accuse appellant merely denies the crime charged?
HELD:
Yes.
The elements of illegal possession of
equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs under Section 12,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (1) possession or
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. In this case,
the prosecution has convincingly established that
Saraum was in possession of drug paraphernalia,
particularly aluminum tin foil, rolled tissue paper, and
lighter, all of which were offered and admitted in
evidence.The accused- appellant did not provide
justification but he just claims that such itemshave
"countless, lawful uses." On the contrary, the
prosecution witnesses have adequately explained the
respective uses of the items to prove that they were
indeed drug paraphernalia.There is, thus, no necessity
to make a laboratory examination and finding as to the
presence or absence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or any illegal substances on said items
since possession itself is the punishable act.
Further, the testimonies of the police officers
who conducted the buy-bust operation are generally
accorded full faith and credit in view of the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties and especially so in the absence of ill-motive
that could be attributed to them. The defense failed to
show any odious intent on the part of the police
officers to impute such a serious crime that would put
in jeopardy the life and liberty of an innocent
person.Saraums mere denial cannot prevail over the
positive and categorical identification and declarations
of the police officers. The defense of denial, frame-up
or extortion, like alibi, has been invariably viewed by
the courts with disfavor for it can easily be concocted
and is a common and standard defense ploy in most
cases involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Act.As evidence that is both negative and self-serving,
this defense cannot attain more credibility than the
testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify
clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the
various aspects of the crime committed.To merit
consideration, it has to be substantiated by strong,
clear and convincing evidence, which Saraum failed to
do for presenting no corroborative evidence.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHLIPPINES,
vs.
CRISTY DIMAANO y TIPDAS
G.R. No. 174481, February 10, 2016
AREA: SPL
FACTS:
Human memory is not infallible.
Inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses in cases involving violations of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act may be excused
so long as the identity of the dangerous drugs is
proved beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of
custody is established with moral certainty
On the 13th day of November, 2002 at the
Manila Domestic Airport Terminal 1, in Pasay City,
Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable court, the above-named accused, being
then a departing passenger for Cebu, without authority
of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in her possession and attempt to
transport 13.96 grams of Methyllamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. Thus,
Dimaano was charged with violating Section in relation
to Section 26 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.
ISSUE:
Did the prosecution fail to establish the
unbroken chain of custody of the methamphetamine
hydrochloride allegedly seized from accused-
appellant?
HELD:
No.
The prosecution was able to establish the
unbroken chain of custody. Chain of custody is 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. In
the case, both NUP Bilugot and SPO2 Ragadio
testified that after NUP Bilugot seized the specimen,
she immediately endorsed it to SPO2 Ragadio. SPO2
Ragadio then turned over the two plastic sachets to
investigators detailed at the Philippine Center for
Aviation and Security.
In this case, the accused asserts that the
chain of custody was violated because of the failure to
mark the seven sachets of shabu. However, the
prosecution proved that they were not marked
because the seven smaller sachets inside the two
plastic sachets.In this case, only the two outer sachets
could be marked because the two sachets were heat-
sealed.If the two outer sachets would have to be
opened for the seven smaller sachets to be marked,
this would have contaminated the ROBERTO PALO y DE GULA v. PEOPLE OF THE
specimen.Nevertheless, the marking of the corpus P.HILIPPINES
delicti as a means to preserve its identity should be
done only "as far as practicable." Thus, the G.R. No. 192075, February 10, 2016
prosecution successfully established the identity of the
corpus delicti. Besides, non-compliance with the AREA: Special penal law
requirements of Section 21 under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary FACTS:
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
Petitioner and his co-accused Jesus Daguman
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
y Ramos were charged with violation of illegal
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
possession of dangerous drugs.

To establish its case, the prosecution

presented P03 Capangyarihan, a member of the
Valenzuela City Police, testified that at around 6:30 in
the evening of July 24, 2002, he was walking along a
dark alley at Mercado Street, Gen. T. De Leon in
Valenzuela City. With him at that time was a boy who
was a victim of a stabbing incident and right behind
them, was PO 1 Santos. While they were walking
toward the petitioner's direction, at a distance of about
five to seven meters, P03 Capangyarihan saw the
petitioner and Daguman talking to each other. P03
Capangyarihan also noticed the petitioner holding a
plastic sachet in his hand who was then showing it to
Daguman. Believing that the plastic sachet contained
shabu, from the manner by which the petitioner was
holding the sachet, P03 Capangyarihan immediately
approached the petitioner, held and recovered from his
hand the said plastic sachet. Right there and then, the
petitioner was arrested by P03 Capangyarihan.
Daguman was also arrested by PO 1 Santos.

P03 Capangyarihan further testified that the

petitioner and Daguman were informed of their
constitutional rights and that the two accused, together
with the item seized, were brought to the police station
where the confiscated item was marked by P03
Capangyarihan with petitioner's initials "RPD."

According to the petitioner, he can no longer

recall the date and time of his arrest. All the same, the
petitioner testified that he and Daguman were just
sitting along the road, in front of a house that was
raided by P03 Capangyarihan and POI Santos. One or
two persons were arrested from the raid. The petitioner
averred that when the police officers passed by him
and Daguman, they were arrested and frisked but
nothing was found in their persons. Nevertheless, the
two accused were made to board the police vehicle,
brought to the police station and detained thereat. The
petitioner insisted that he had never been involved in
any drug-related incident prior to his arrest. On cross-
examination, he stated that he only complained to his
sister of the illegality of his arrest.

ISSUES: Is petitioner guilty of illegal possession of a

dangerous drug?

HELD: Yes

To secure a conviction for illegal possession of

a dangerous drug, the concurrence of the following
elements must be established by the prosecution: (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 Court finds that these elements were
proven by the prosecution in the present case. P03
Capangyarihan testified in a clear and straightforward
manner that when he chanced upon petitioner, the
latter was caught red-handed in the illegal possession
of shabu and was arrested in flagrante delicto.
The Court concurs with the trial court in
attributing full faith and credence to the testimony of
P03 Capangyarihan. His detailed narration in court
remained consistent with the documentary and object
evidence submitted by the prosecution.
The Court is convinced that the integrity and
evidentiary value of shabu seized from the petitioner
had been preserved under the chain of custody rule.
Here, evidence shows that immediately after
both the petitioner and the plastic sachet were brought
to the police station by P03 Capangyarihan, the latter
marked the plastic sachet with petitioner's initials
"RPD" and turned them over to investigator SPO 1
Tapar. SPO 1 Tapar forwarded the plastic sachet
bearing "RPD" initials as well as the letter-request for
laboratory examination to P02 Isla.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v ROMEL
SAPITULA V PACULAN
G.R. No. 209212, February 10, 2016
AREA: SPL
FACTS:
At four o'clock in the afternoon of 16 June
2011, the buy-bust team proceeded to Barangay
Ambitacay. PO3 Palabay had already been in
communication via short message system (SMS) with
accused-appellant regarding the amount of shabu to
be purchased. It had also been agreed via SMS that
they would meet at Ambitacay crossing at six o'clock in
the evening.
At the crossing, at half past five o'clock in the
afternoon when PO3 Palabay noticed accused-
appellant coming his way, he disembarked from the
tricycle in which lie had been waiting. He approached
accused-appellant who immediately handed to him a
heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white
crystalline substance; and PO3 Palabay, in exchange,
gave accused-appellant the marked money. Accused-
appellant then counted the money while PO3 Palabay
placed the sachet in his pocket and removed his cap to
signal the arrest to the other police officers. Accused-
appellant attempted to flee but was subsequently
overcome and handcuffed by the other officers. PO3
Palabay informed accused-appellant of his
constitutional rights; took a photograph of the latter as
well as the area and the plastic sachet which he
marked "AJP-1-11." He also made an inventory of the
marked money and the seized plastic sachet in the
presence of the Barangay Captain and another
witness.
Accused-appellant, as the lone witness for the
defense, testified that on 16 June 2011, on his way
home with his wife and child after a day of ferrying
passengers in his tricycle, a male person and his
companion flagged him down. The man asked
accused-appellant to get down from his tricycle and
thereafter, drew out a gun and introduced himself as a
policeman. Accused-appellant tried to run away from
him but two (2) other persons blocked his way and
handcuffed him. These two forced him to hold
something and when accused-appellant refused, they
rubbed it onto his hands. Thereafter, a patrol car
arrived and he was brought to the police station.
On 5 August 2011, the RTC rendered
judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of attempted
sale of a dangerous drug.
ISSUE: Is the sale of the shabu only in the attempted
stage?
HELD:
No
In every prosecution for illegal sale of shabu,
the following elements must be sufficiently proved: (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 therefor.
The Court finds that all elements for illegal
sale were duly established with accused-appellant
having been caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu
through a buy-bust operation conducted by the buy-
bust team of PO3 Palabay. The delivery of the illicit
drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller
of the marked money successfully consummated the
buy-bust transaction.
More importantly, the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items were duly preserved as the
chain of custody remained intact.
The Court has ruled in People v. Enriquez, that
the links that must be established in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation are: 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.
In the case at bar, PO3 Palabay, the poseur
buyer, positively testified that he placed in his pocket
the plastic sachet of shabu handed to him by accused-
appellant. At the time of arrest, he photographed
accused-appellant, the area and the sachet of shabu,
marked the same and conducted the inventory before
the Barangay Chairman and another witness. PO3
Palabay further testified that he brought accused-
appellant and the sachet of shabu to the police station,
and there, executed affidavits of arrest and of the
poseur buyer and made a request for laboratory
examination. PO3 Palabay then took accused-
appellant and the sachet of shabu to the crime
laboratory and the latter was received by PSI Antonio.
VINSON* D. YOUNG A.K.A. BENZON ONG AND
BENNY YOUNG A.K.A. BENNY ONG,
v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 213910, February 03, 2016
AREA: SPL
FACTS:
Members of the Regional Anti-Human
Trafficking Task Force (RAHTTF) of the Philippine
National Police (PNP), conducted surveillance
operations at Jaguar KTV Bar (Jaguar) in Cebu City,
and observed that its customers paid P6,000.00 in
exchange for sexual intercourse with guest relations
officers (GROs), or P10,000.00 as "bar fine" if they
were taken out of the establishment. In the course of
their surveillance, they learned that: (a) petitioners
were the owners of Jaguar; (b) a certain "Tico" acted
as overall manager; and (c) a certain "Ann" welcomed
customers and offered them GROs.
In defense, Vinson denied ownership of
Jaguar and asserted that he had sold his rights and
interests therein to one Charles Theodore Rivera
pursuant to a Deed of Assignment. Not being the
manager nor owner of Jaguar, therefore, he had no
control and supervision over the AAA Group, with
whom he denied acquaintance. Similarly, Benny
claimed that he was neither the owner nor manager of
Jaguar and was not even present during the raid. He
raised "mistake in identity" as defense, stressing that
he was not the same person identified by the AAA
Group in their respective affidavits.
ISSUE:
Did the CA err in finding grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the RTC in dismissing the
criminal case against petitioners for lack of probable
cause?
HELD:
No.
The court declared that Judges and
Prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary
inquiry which determines probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary
investigation proper which ascertains whether the
offender should be held for trial or released. Even if the
two inquiries are conducted in the course of one and
the same proceeding, there should be no confusion
about the objectives. The determination of probable
cause for the warrant of arrest is made by the Judge.
The preliminary investigation proper whether or not
there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused
is guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, whether
or not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors
and embarrassment of trial is the function of the
Prosecutor.
Accordingly, a judge may dismiss the case for
lack of probable cause only in clear-cut cases when
the evidence on record plainly fails to establish
probable cause - that is when the records readily show
uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which
unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of
the crime charged.
The evidence on record herein does not reveal the
unmistakable and clear-cut absence of probable
cause against petitioners. Instead, a punctilious
examination thereof shows that the prosecution was
able to establish a prima facie case against petitioners
for violation of RA 9208. As it appears from the
records, petitioners recruited and hired the AAA Group
and, consequently, maintained them under their
employ in Jaguar for the purpose of engaging in
prostitution. In view of this, probable cause exists to
issue warrants for their arrest. The assailed RTC
Order was a patent nullity for being rendered with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in
excess of jurisdiction
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
v.
LEE QUIJANO ENAD,
G.R. No. 205764, February 03, 2016
AREA: SPL
FACTS:
The accused was charged of Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs.For the prosecution,
three (3) witnesses testified, namely: Police Inspector
(P/Insp.) Leoncio G. Demauro, a member of PDEA,
P/Insp. Arceliano A. Baares, also a member of the
PDEA; and Jude Daniel Mendoza, the Forensic
Chemical Officer/Medical Technologist of PNP Crime
Laboratory.
P/Insp. Baares then approached and held the
motorcycle being boarded by appellant. Appellant said
that the marijuana costs P1,500.00 per kilo and asked
P/Insp. Baares if he had the money. P/Insp. Baares
pulled out from his right pocket the boodle money
which was sandwiched between two (2) One Hundred
Peso bills P100.00 and gave it to appellant. In turn,
appellant opened the bag with suspected dried
marijuana. After seeing the contents, P/Insp. Baares
took the bag and made the pre-arranged signal that
the transaction was already consummated. P/Insp.
Baares immediately introduced himself as a police
officer and recovered the money from appellant.
P/Insp. Demauro also rushed in and arrested the
appellant who offered no resistance.P/Insps. Baares
and Demauro brought the appellant to a nearby store
and presented him before barangay tanods, then
proceeded to the office. P/Insp. Demauro prepared the
booking sheet, the arrest report, as well as the
requests for laboratory examination of the suspected
dried marijuana marked as "LQE" and dated 08-14-
2005, and for medical examination of appellant. The
letter requests were forwarded to Jude Mendoza of the
PNP Crime Laboratory. As shown by Chemistry Report
No. D-1192-2005, the specimen was found positive for
marijuana.
ISSUE:
Is there proper observance of the chain of
custody?
HELD:
None.
The prosecution utterly failed to prove the
identity of the one who actually marked the drugs
seized from appellant with the initials "LQE" and the
date "08-14-2005," and whether it was marked in the
latter's presence. Hence, the first link in the chain of
custody of the drugs seized from appellant was
broken.Anent the second link in the chain of custody,
there is no showing who between P/Insps. Baares
and Demauro turned over to the investigating officer
the drugs seized from appellant. With respect to the
third link in the chain of custody, there is likewise no
indication as to the identity of the investigating officer
who then turned over the drugs to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination.
Although a physical inventory of the bag of
marijuana seized from appellant was made in the
presence of a representative from the media and an
elective public official at the PDEA Office, the
prosecution offered no justification why a DOJ
representative was not present and why the same item
was not photographed. Significantly, the integrity and
evidentiary value of the drugs seized from appellant
was not preserved by the apprehending team because
the prosecution failed (a) to identify who actually
placed the marking "LQE" thereon, (b) to show that it
was marked in the presence of the appellant, and (c)
to prove the chain of custody of the said item from the
crime scene until it reached the crime laboratory.
The Court finds that the prosecution failed (a)
to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the bag of
marijuana seized from appellant, (b) to prove that the
specimen found to be positive for marijuana upon
laboratory examination, was the same dangerous
drugs seized from him, and (c) to proffer any justifiable
ground for the non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A.
9165. These flaws cast serious doubt on whether the
specimen found to be positive of marijuana upon
laboratory examination was the same drugs seized
from appellant and offered in evidence before the trial
court. With the failure of the prosecution to prove with
moral certainty the identity and the unbroken chain of
custody of the dangerous drugs seized from him,
appellant deserves exoneration from the crime
charged. Therefore, QuijanoEnad is ACQUITTED.
JORGE B. NAVARRA,V. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES~ HONGKONG and SHANGHAI
BANKING CORPORATION,
G.R. No. 203750, June 6, _ 2016
PERALTA, J.:
Area: Special Penal Law
Fact:
Petitioner Jorge Navarra is the Chief Finance
Officer of Reynolds Philippines Corporation
(Reynolds), which has been a long time client of
private respondent Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation (HSBC). HSBC granted Reynolds a loan
line of P82 Million and a foreign exchange line of
P900,000.00. Thereafter, Reynolds executed several
promissory notes in HSBC's favor. Subsequently,
Reynolds,through Navarra and its Vice-President for
Corporate Affairs, George Molina, issued seven (7)
Asia Trust checks amounting to P45.2 Million for the
payment of its loan obligation.
When HSBC presented the subject checks for
payment, said checks were all dishonored and
returned for being "Drawn Against Insufficient Funds."
Navarra received a notice of dishonor but requested
HSBC to reconsider its decision to declare the
corporation in default. HSBC sent another notice of
dishonor with respect to another check in the amount
of P3.7 Million, and demanded its payment as well as
that of the six ( 6) other checks previously dishonored.
Despite said demands, however, Reynolds refused to
pay. Hence, HSBC filed Informations against Navarra
and Molina for violation of Batas PambansaBilang 22
before the Makati Metropolitan Trial Court.
Issue: Should the maker have actual knowledge of
insufficiency of his funds for conviction under BP 22
Held: Yes.
The mere act of issuing a worthless check is
malumprohibitum; it is simply the commission of the
act that the law prohibits, and not its character or
effect, which determines whether or not the provision
has been violated. Malice or criminal intent is
completely immaterial. When the first and third
elements of the offense are present, BP 22 creates a
presumptionjuris tantum that the second element
exists. Thus, the maker's knowledge is presumed from
the dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds.
The clear import of the law is to establish a
prima facie presumption of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds under the following conditions:
(1) the presentment within ninety (90) days from date
of the check, and (2) the dishonor of the check and
failure of the maker to make arrangements for
payment in full within five (5) banking days from notice.
 Maria Cecilia Oebanda, Executive Director and describe the alleged wrongful acts that Visayan Forum
Employees of Visayan Forum Foundation, Inc., committed and was committing at that time.
v.People of the Philippines
G.R. No. 208137, June 08, 2016
AREA: Criminal procedure
CARPIO, ACTING, C.J.:
Facts:

The United States Office of Inspector General,

through Special Agent Daniel Altman, sought the
assistance of the NBI to investigate alleged financial
fraud committed by Visayan Forum Foundation.

The NBI Agents jointly applied for a search

warrant with the RTC of Quezon City. The NBI Agents
cited violation of Article 172(2) of the Revised Penal
Code and alleged that petitioners Maria Cecilia
Oebanda, the Executive Director of Visayan Forum,
and/or the occupants and employees of Visayan
Forum are in possession or have in their control
falsified private documents which were used and are
being used to defraud the donors of USAID, to its
damage and prejudice.

During the hearing on the application for the

issuance of a search warrant the Presiding Judge of
RTC of Quezon City extensively interrogated the two
NBI Agents who applied for the search warrant.

After personally examined the applicants, the

two NBI Agents, and their witnesses, and was satisfied
of the existence of facts upon which the application
was based, Judge Cabochan issued Search Warrant
against Visayan Forum.

Issue:Is examination conducted in a probing and

exhaustive manner by the Judge?

Held:

In an application for search warrant, the

mandate of the judge is for him to conduct a full and
searching examination of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce. The searching questions
propounded to the applicant and the witnesses must
depend on a large extent upon the discretion of the
judge. Although there is no hard-and-fast rule as to
how a judge may conduct his examination, it is
axiomatic that the said examination must be probing
and exhaustive and not merely routinary, general,
peripheral or perfunctory. He must make his own
inquiry on the intent and factual and legal justifications
for a search warrant. The questions should not merely
be repetitious of the averments stated in the
affidavits/deposition of the applicant and the
witnesses. Moreover, Probable cause is concerned
with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty.
The prosecution need not present at this stage proof
beyond reasonable doubt.

In the present case, the Transcript of

Stenographic Notes shows that Judge Cabochan
extensively interrogated the two NBI Agents who
applied for the search warrant. The NBI Agents were
able to sufficiently observe the layout of the office
buildings, the location of relevant documents and
equipment, and the movement of the employees. Most
importantly, the NBI Agents were able to distinctly
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOAN SON.JACO The prosecution was able to establish with
Y STA. ANA, moral certainty the following elements required for all
prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1)
G.R. No. 196962, June 8, 2016 proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2)
the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the
AREA: Special penal law illicit drug as evidence.
PEREZ, J.: The commission of the offense of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires the
Facts: consummation of the selling transaction which
happens the moment the buyer receives the drug from
Appellant was charged with violation of
the seller. The crime is already consummated once the
Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165, or the
police officer has gone through the operation as a
comprehensive dangerous drugs act.
buyer whose offer was accepted by the accused,
The prosecution established that based on followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the
information received on 6 August 2005, that appellant former.
and a certain alias Kenkoy were engaged in illegal
On the other hand, to sustain a prosecution for
drug trade in Pateros Street, Barangay Olympia,
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following
Makati City, Police Superintendent Marieto Valerio
elements must be established: (1) the accused is in
formed a buy-bust team. After a surveillance of the
possession of an item or object identified to be a
area and coordination with the Philippine Drug
prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such possession is
Enforcement Agency were made, P/Supt. Valerio
not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
briefed the team. PO I Marmonejo was designated as
consciously possessed said drug.
poseur-buyer and two (2) pieces of One Hundred Peso
(Pl 00) bills marked with the initials "MMV" were Obtained through a valid search the police
provided for the operation. officers conducted pursuant to Section 13, Rule 126 of
the Rules of Court, the sachets recovered from
At five o'clock in the afternoon of that day, PO
appellant's person all tested positive for Methyl
1 Marmonejo and the police asset, on board a tricycle
amphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Mere
driven by PO 1 Mendoza, proceeded to the target
possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie
area. The other members of the buybust team
evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient
positioned themselves nearby. The police asset called
to convict an accused in the absence of any
appellant and told her that PO 1 Marmonejo wanted to
satisfactory explanation of such possession.
buy shabu. Appellant asked POI Marmonejo how
much, to which he replied, "katorse fang" or P200.00
worth of shabu. Appellant then took out from her
pocket two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing a
white crystalline substance, one of which she handed
to PO I Marmonejo in exchange for two (2) One
Hundred Peso (Pl 00) bills. Appellant pocketed the
other plastic sachet.

Upon consummation of the transaction, POI

Marmonejo revealed that he was a police officer and
immediately apprehended appellant, apprised her of
her constitutional rights and asked her to empty her
pockets. PO I Marmonejo recovered money in the
amount of Five Hundred Forty Pesos (P540.00), a
mobile phone, and three (3) other plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance. POI Marmonejo
marked the sachet sold to him as "BONG" while the
three (3) other sachets as "JOAN," "JOAN l," and
JOAN 2."

Appellant was brought to the police station for

investigation and POI Marmonejo submitted the seized
sachets to the Southern Police District Crime
Laboratory. The Forensic Laboratory Report confirmed
that the sachets contained methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.

Issue: Is accused appellant guilty of illegal possession

and selling of prohibited drugs?

Held: Yes
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEX MENDEZ execution of their criminal plan. The commission of the
RAFOLS offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs merely
requires the consummation of the selling transaction
G.R. No. 214440, June 15, 2016 which happens the moment the buyer receives the
drug from the seller. The crime is already
Area: Special Penal Law consummated once the police officer has gone through
the operation as a buyer whose offer was accepted by
PEREZ, J.: the accused, followed by the delivery of the dangerous
drugs to the former.
Facts:
For a successful prosecution for illegal
Appellant was charged with violation of
possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements
Sections 5 and 11 of A1iicle II of R.A. No. 9165.
must be established: (1) the accused is in possession
Upon receipt of information that appellant is of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or a
engaged in illegal drug activities in Sito Riverside, regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized
Barangay Day-as, Cebu City, a buy-bust team was by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
formed headed by Director Levi S. Ortiz (Dir. Ortiz) of possessed said drug.
the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) to
Mere possession of a prohibited drug
apprehend appellant on 5 December 2007, pursuant to
constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or
an Authority to Operate. 5 IA3 George Cansancio was
animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in
designated as poseur buyer. The buy-bust money was
the absence of any satisfactory explanation of such
marked with "LSO," the initials of Dir. Ortiz. 6
possession. The burden to explain the absence of
The informant and the poseur buyer animus possidendi rests upon the accused, and in the
proceeded to the location while the rest of the buy-bust case at bar, this the appellant failed to do.
team strategically positioned themselves at the target
area. Seeing the poseur buyer with the informant, the
appellant asked the former if he wanted to buy shabu.
The poseur buyer replied in the affirmative, stated the
quantity when asked how much he wanted to
purchase, and immediately gave appellant the buy-
bust money. Appellant took out from his pocket a silver
container out of which he got the plastic sachet
containing the white crystalline substance believed to
be shabu. After the exchange, the poseur buyer
executed the pre-arranged signal to another police
officer, F03 Priscillano C. Gingoyon (F03 Gingoyon),
who assisted in the arrest of appellant. Appellant was
apprised of his constitutional rights and the violation he
had committed. A body search on appellant's person
yielded six (6) plastic sachets of white crystalline
substance and the buy-bust money. The buy-bust team
took appellant and the confiscated items to the PDEA
office for investigation. After marking, inventory and
photographing of the same were done in the presence
of appellant, barangay tanods and a media
representative, the confiscated items were taken to the
Philipine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for
analysis and examination. RendielynSahagun
(Sahagun), Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime
Laboratory, conducted an examination on the
specimens submitted and found them to be positive for
the presence of shabu.

Issue: Is accused appellant guilty of tje crime

charged?

Held: Yes

The prosecution was able to establish with

moral certainty the following elements required for all
prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs: (1)
proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2)
the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the
illicit drug as evidence. Appellant was apprehended,
indicted and convicted by way of a buy-bust operation,
a form of entrapment to capture lawbreakers in the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGILIO A. QUIM Even if PO2 Repompo did see clearly the
alleged transaction, still there is violation of the chain
G.R. No. 213919, June 15, 2016 of custody of the seized illegal drug.

Area: Special Penal Law In this case, there was a gap in the chain of
custody of the seized drug at the very beginning. The
CARPIO, J.: prosecution's lone witness, PO2 Repompo omitted to
testify to whom the poseur buyer handed the shabu
Facts: which was allegedly bought from appellant during the
buy-bust operation.
The accused was charged with illegal sale of
shabu. Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Another breach in the chain of custody was
the marking of the sachet of shabu by SPO1 Navales
The prosecution presented PO2 Jose
which was not done in the presence of appellant.
Yamasaki Repompo as its lone witness. PO2
During his testimony, PO2 Repompo stated that he
Repompo testified that after a report confirmed
was present when SPO1 Navales marked the sachet
appellant as selling shabu in Carcar, Cebu, the police
of shabu at the place where they made the search. No
officers applied for a search warrant which was
mention was made of the whereabouts of appellant
granted. A team was then formed to conduct a buy-
when the marking on the sachet of shabu was made,
bust operation. The team was composed of SPO3
which leads to the conclusion that appellant was not
Cayubit, SPO1 Navales, SPO1 Agadier, PO2
present when the marking was made.
Repompo, the civilian asset as a poseur buyer, and
other Philippine National Police personnel. Another lapse committed by the prosecution is
the non-presentation of SPO1 Navales who brought
On 3 April 2004, at around 9:15 a.m., the
the shabu from the place where the search occurred to
civilian asset who acted as poseur buyer approached
the police station. Only the prosecution's lone witness,
appellant who was just outside his house. The police
PO2 Repompo testified that SPO1 Navales brought
officers who composed the buy-bust team were
the shabu to the police station. No other details were
positioned about 10 to 15 meters from where the
provided by PO2 Repompo other than stating that it
transaction occurred. The poseur buyer then handed
was SPO1 Navales who brought the shabu to the
the P100 marked money to appellant who gave the
police station. Thus, it was not clear whether PO2
poseur buyer one packet of shabu. The police team
Repompo saw SPO1 Navales in possession of the
then arrested appellant and they were able to recover
shabu from the time SPO1 Navales marked the shabu
from appellant P290, including the P100 marked
up to the time the shabu was brought to the police
money. SPO1 Navales marked the shabu specimen
station. This constitutes another broken link in the
with "VAQ-1." Appellant was then brought to the police
chain of custody of the seized drug.
station. The Chief of Police prepared a letter-request
for laboratory examination and PO2 Repompo The prosecution's failure to establish every link
delivered the shabu specimen to the PNP Crime in the chain of custody of the illegal drug gravely
Laboratory, where the specimen was found positive for compromised its identity and evidentiary value. The
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drug
which is the corpus delicti of the offense charged
The trial court convicted the accused for the
against appellant warrants his acquittal.
crime charge which judgment was affirmed by the CA.

Issue: Is appellant is guilty of sale of

methamphetamine hydrochloride?

Held: No

Appellant in this case is accused of selling

0.04 gram of shabu contained in a plastic sachet. PO2
Repompo, who was hiding behind the banana trees
approximately 10 to 15 meters away, would indeed find
it hard to have a clear view of the alleged transaction,
much less see the small plastic sachet containing the
0.04 gram of shabu allegedly being passed from
appellant to the poseur buyer. Since appellant denied
selling the shabu or that the drug transaction
happened, the prosecution should have presented the
poseur buyer to rebut appellant's testimony instead of
just relying on the lone testimony of PO2 Repompo,
who admitted that he observed the alleged transaction
from a distance of 10 to 15 meters. Neither did the
prosecution present the other members of the buy-bust
team as witnesses to corroborate the testimony of PO2
Repompo.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENRIQUE
MIRANDA, JR. Y PAA @ "ERIKA" AND ALVIN
ALGA Y MIRANDA @ "ALVIN,"
G.R. No. 206880, June 29, 2016
Area: Special penal law
PEREZ, J.:
Facts:
On 7 October 2003, around nine o'clock in the
morning, Police Chief Inspector Celedonio I. Morales
received a word from a confidential informant that
Miranda is engaged in illegal drug trade in Barangay
Tabang, PlaridelBulacan, and instructed said informant
to make a transaction with the latter.
The buy-bust team proceeded to Miranda's
place. Both appellants were placed under arrest,
informed of their constitutional rights and the reason
for their arrest. Miranda was bodily searched and four
(4) plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance were recovered. Alga was likewise frisked
by PO1 De Guzman which search yielded the buy-bust
money.
Herein, the requirements of physical inventory
and photograph-taking of the seized drugs were not
observed. This noncompliance raises doubts whether
the illegal drug items used as evidence in both the
cases for violation of Section 5 and Section 11 of R.A.
No. 9165 were the same ones that were allegedly
seized from appellants.
R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules and
regulations both state that non-compliance with the
procedures thereby delineated and set would not
necessarily invalidate the seizure and custody of the
dangerous drugs provided there were justifiable
grounds for the non-compliance, and provided that the
integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti was
preserved. Herein, the proffered excuses were that it
was night-time, there was no available camera and
that the police officer who had initial custody of the
seized drugs was new in the service and was not
familiar with the inventory requirement. The Court finds
that these explanations do not justify non-compliance
with the required procedures of R.A. No. 9165.

The seized drugs were marked and turned

over to PO2 Nachor who prepared a request for their
laboratory examination. Four (4) of the five (5) heat-
sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline
substance were confirmed to be positive for shabu.

Despite the defenses of denial, vigorous

assertions of frame-up and evidence planting
interposed by appellants, the failure of the police
officers to conduct an inventory of the seized drugs
and to take photographs of the same, requirements of
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the RTC held that their
guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue: Is accused appellants guilty of illegal sale and

possession of shabu?

Held: No

The RTC and the Court of Appeals failed to

consider the serious infirmity of the buy-bust team's
non-observance of the rules of procedure for handling
illegal drug items, particularly the requirement of an
inventory and photographs of the same.

In illegal drugs cases, the identity of the drugs

seized must be established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that required arriving at a finding of guilt.
The case against appellants hinges on the ability of the
prosecution to prove that the illegal drugs presented in
court are the same ones that were recovered from the
appellants upon their arrest. This requirement arises
from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that
renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily
open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by
accident or otherwise.
 LUIS DERILO Y GEPOLEOv. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES

G.R. NO. 190466 APRIL 18, 2016

PONENTE: BRION, J.:

AREA/S: SPL

FACTS:
By virtue of a search warrant, a team of police
officers, assisted by two barangay tanods searched
the petitioners bedroom and recovered twelve (12)
plastic sachets inside a matchbox, each containing
white crystalline substance. The police officers also
recovered suspected drug paraphernalia, which were
scattered in plain view in different parts of the house.
While at the scene, SPO1 Evasco proceeded to mark
the confiscated items with his initials, "S.B.E.," while
SPO1 Calupit took their photographs. Based on
the Chemistry Report the twelve (12) plastic sachets
indeed contained shabu. The prosecution charged the
petitioner with violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II
of RA No. 9165. The RTC found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and such finding was
affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE:
Is failure to establish the chain of custody of
the seized item fatal to prosecutions case?

HELD:
Yes.

To show an unbroken link in the chain of

custody, the prosecutions evidence must include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was seized to the time it is offered in
court as evidence, such that every person who
handled the evidence would acknowledge how and
from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. The
same witness would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and no opportunity for someone
not in the chain to have its possession. It is from the
testimony of every witness who handled the evidence
from which a reliable assurance can be derived that
the evidence presented in court is one and the same
as that seized from the accused.

The following links must be established to

ensure the preservation of the identity and integrity of
the confiscated drug: 1) the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; 2) the turnover of
the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; 3) the turnover by the
investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and 4) the turnover
and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court.

In this case, the records are bereft of any

evidence that would clearly show that the twelve (12)
plastic sachets supposedly containing the shabu were
ever marked by SPO1 Evasco, whether at the scene
or at the police station, and that they were marked in
the presence of the petitioner. In fact, based on the
evidence on record, there is only one set of markings
on the twelve (12) plastic sachets the markings of "A-
1" to "A-12" made by P/Inspt. Clemens a day after the
items were seized; there appears to be unexplained
inconsistencies in the drug specimens submitted by
the police officers to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination; there appears to be unexplained
inconsistencies in the drug specimens submitted by
the police officers to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. FABIAN URZAIS
Y LANURIAS ET AL
G.R. NO. 207662 APRIL 13, 2016
PONENTE:
AREA/S: SPL (RA 6539/Anti Carnapping Act of
1972, as amended )
FACTS:
Accused together with co accused Alex
Bautista and Ricky Bautista were charged with
carnapping with homicide through the use of
unlicensed firearm for the victim of Mario Magdato
occasioned on the carnapping.
Meanwhile, accused appellant was allegedly
apprehended in a check point while the Bautista
brothers remained at large. Urzais was found in
possession of the carnapped vehicle identified through
the matching engine number of the reported car and
that possessed by Urzais. During the trial, Urzais
interposed the defense of denial alleging that he
ordered an owner type jeepney from the Bautista
brothers, yet to his surprise, the two delivered a newer
car at a measly amount of P60,000. Such testimony
was corroborated by Oscar, a friend of Urzais who
testified that he advised accused to surrender the
vehicle since it may be a hot car due to the
suspiciously cheap price. However accused did not
immediately surrender the same since he was worried
about how he could recover the cash he paid the
Bautista brothers.
Before the RTC, accused was found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and it was affirmed by the
CA.
ISSUE:
Is possession of a carnapped vehicle sufficient
to convict the possessor of the special complex crime
of carnapping with homicide through the use of
unlicensed fire arm?
HELD:
No. The prosecutions burden is to prove that
the vehicle was carnapped and that the killing of
Magdato was occasioned on the carnapping or was
done to carry out the carnapping. However, there was
no evidence supporting the prosecutions theory that
the victims vehicle was carnapped, much less that the
accused is the author of the same.
The application of the disputable presumption
that a person found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the
doer of the whole act is limited to cases where such
possession is either unexplained or that the proffered
explanation is rendered implausible in view of
independent evidence inconsistent thereto. In the
instant case, accused-appellant set-up a defense of
denial of the charges and adhered to his unrebutted
version of the story that the vehicle had been sold to
him by the brothers Bautista. Though the explanation
is not seamless, once the explanation is made for the
possession, the presumption arising from the
unexplained possession may not anymore be invoked
and the burden shifts once more to the prosecution to
produce evidence that would render the defense of the
accused improbable. And this burden, the prosecution
was unable to discharge. Evidently, the disputable
presumption cannot prevail over accuseds explanation
for his possession of the missing vehicle. The
possession having been explained, the legal
presumption is disputed andthus, cannot find
application in the instant case.The carnapping not
being duly proved, the killing of the victim may not be
treated as an incident of carnapping.
The equipoise rule states that where the
inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two
or more explanations, one of which is consistent with
the innocence of the accused and the other consistent
with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfil the test
of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a
conviction. The equipoise rule provides that where the
evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the
constitutional presumption of innocence tilts the scales
in favor of the accused.