1. Fuentes y Garcia vs PP (c/o Ms.

Amorio)

FACTS:

Petitioner Edwin Fuentes “Kanyod” and Nicky Calotes were charged of illegal possession of
dangerous drug. Police officers alleged that during surveillance, they saw Calotes in the act of
handing petitioner what appeared to be a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance.
Immediately, PO1 Forastero grabbed Calotes and confiscated the plastic sachet while SPO1
Madriaga apprehended the petitioner from whom he recovered two (2) more plastic sachets.

They then proceeded to the headquarters in Muntinlupa and marked the seized plastic
sachets and conducted an inventory thereof in the presence of Nestor Gianan, City Architect of
Muntinlupa City. After preparing a request for laboratory examination of the seized items, a
qualitative examination was conducted and was positive for shabu, a dangerous drug. Petitioners
denied the charges and claimed that the seized illegal drugs were planted.

The RTC found the two as guilty beyond reasonable doubt and was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals finding that all the elements of the crime charged had been established by the
prosecution. It likewise upheld the validity of their warrantless arrest, and further found that the
integrity of the seized items had been preserved as the chain of custody thereof had been observed
despite their marking at the police station. Likewise, the specimens were brought to the crime
laboratory on the same day.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the petitioner’s conviction for the crime of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

RULING:

Yes, the petition is meritorious.

As part of the chain o custody procedure, the law requires that the apprehending team,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory and photograph the
seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his
representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses: (a) if prior to the amendment o
RA 9165 by RA 10640, “a representative from the media AND the Department of justice, and any
elected public official”; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, “an elected public
official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media.” Deviations from
the procedure may be allowed, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that (a) there
is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved.

Here, ecords disclosed glaring and unjustifiable deviations from the chain of custody
procedure:

First, the prosecution witnesses testified that they marked the seized items at the police
station and after a request for laboratory examination had been prepared, both of them went to
the PNP Crime Laboratory to deliver the said request and the seized items. Unfortunately, the
apprehending officers failed to identify who received the request for laboratory examination and
the seized items at the crime laboratory. Neither it has been established who handled the same
before and after the findings were rendered until the same had been presented in court as
evidence.

Second, the records are bereft of evidence showing that the seized items were photographed,
much more in the presence of petitioner, or his representative or counsel as well as the witnesses
required by law.

And finally, there was a deviation from the witness requirement as the conduct of inventory
was not witnessed by an elected public official, a DOJ representative, and media representative.

As the court sees it, the prosecution did not faithfully comply with the standards and
unfortunately failed to justify non-compliance.

Wherefore, the petition is granted.

2. PP vs Gayoso

Facts:
PI Barbers instructed SPO3 De Dios to conduct a surveillance against Gayoso after
receiving reports of peddling prohibited drugs. After SPO3 De Dios confirmed that
Gayoso was into selling of prohibited drugs, they applied for a search warrant. However,
prior to the issuance of the warrant, PI Barbers decided to conduct a confirmatory test-
buy. That on Mar. 24, 2004, SPO3 De Dios and a civilian asset conducted the operation
with P200 as marked money. The operation was considered consummated when the De
Dios gave the marked money and Gayoso handed the sachet of shabu. Then the group of
PI Barbers who were positioned 100 meters away from the house of Gayoso rushed in
and did the search in the presence of a barangay kagawad and media representative. The
police found thin foil, 7 sachets of shabu, in addition to the 4 sachets found in the pocket
of Gayoso, and several drug paraphernalia. The inventory of seized items was signed by
the barangay chairman and the was brought to the PDEA crime laboratory, which
subsequently revealed that the substance seized contained shabu. Gayoso denied the
charges and claimed that the police forcibly entered her house and the said sachets of
shabu were planted against her since her family had a quarrel with police. She also
claimed that a search warrant came late, only after an hour the police appeared in her
house.

The RTC and CA ruled against Gayoso founding her guilty on unauthorized sale
and possession of shabu. The elements of sale and possession of shabu were proven
during the test-but operation having SPO3 De Dios as poseur buyer. That she consciously
knew the possession of shabu and did not have such authority. CA further ruled that the
issuance of search warrant was valid since the RTC judge has established a probable
cause. Moreover, CA explained that test-buy operation in this case was not tantamount
to instigation since it was a settled jurisprudence that a “decoy solicitation” is not
tantamount to inducement or instigation. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:
WON, Gayoso is guilty of selling (Sect. 5) and possession (Sect. 11) of prohibited
dangerous drug (shabu) in violation of RA 9165.

Ruling:

No. In this case, SC confirmed that validity of the issuance of search warrant and
confirmatory test-buy operation. However, the chain of custody of evidence was not
established against Gayoso. In both illegal sale and illegal possession, conviction cannot
be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of said drug. The identity of
the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the
elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the drug illegally possessed and
sold is the same drug offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the
same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. As a general rule, four
links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item must be established:
a. first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;
b. second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
c. third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and
d. fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court

Herein case, no records that shows marking of evidence seized by the arresting
offices. Though the police stated that markings were done in the police station, they have
not identified the author of the markings nor admitted the presence of the marking. The
markings in the nearest police station contemplates only for warrantless arrest; wherein
in this case, search warrant was present and valid. Moreover, the police failed to identify
the person whom they turned over the sized illegal items. The property custodian in the
police station (SPO3 Salamida) does not necessarily mean that he is also the investigating
officer. Thus, second link was not clearly identified. Pertaining to the endorsement of the
seized illegal drugs to the chemist of PDEA crime laboratory, which is the third link,
though PI Barbers endorsed it to the PDEA but he has no personal knowledge of the
manner it was handled and did not identified the police officer in whose custody the
seized sachets of shabu were placed. The fourth link has no gained in this case since the
chemist cannot assert that the shabu being tested was the same shabu being seized.

It appears that no chain of custody was established at all. The case only have
individual links with breaks in-between which could not be seamlessly woven or tied
together. The so-called links in the chain of custody show that the seized shabu was not
handled properly starting from the actual seizure, to its turnover in the police station and
the PDEA, as well as its transfer to the crime laboratory for examination. The Court
therefore cannot conclude with moral certainty that the shabu confiscated from appellant
was the same as that presented for laboratory examination and then presented in court. In
this case, the apprehending team never conducted a physical inventory of the seized
items at the place where the search warrant was served in the presence of a representative
of the Department of Justice, nor did it photograph the same in the presence of appellant
after their initial custody and control of said drug, and after immediately seizing and
confiscating the same. Neither was an explanation offered for such failure. While this
directive of rigid compliance has been tempered in certain cases, "such liberality, as stated
in the Implementing Rules and Regulations can be applied only when the evidentiary
value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved." Such an exception does
not obtain in this case. "Serious uncertainty is generated on the identity of the shabu in
view of the broken linkages in the chain of custody. Thus, the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duty accorded to the apprehending officers by the courts
below cannot arise. Whereby, the appeal of Gayoso was granted and was acquitted of the
charges.

3. People vs Guanzon y Ceneta GR 233653 September 5, 2018

FACTS: On July 28, 2003, at around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, the PNP received
information from a concerned citizen that Guanzon was selling dangerous drugs at
Antipolo City.To apprehend Guanzon, the PNP immediately coordinated with the
PDEA and planned a buy-bust operation against Guanzon. The team also prepared two
(2) 100 peso bills (with serial numbers Z387982 and CN570732), which were used as
marked money for the operation. At around 9:00 o'clock in the morning of the same
day, the team arrived at the target area. PO2 Hernandez alighted from their vehicle and
approached Guanzon. He told Guanzon, "tol e-eskor ako", and gave him the marked
money. In exchange, Guanzon handed him a small plastic sachet of white crystalline
substance. Upon receipt of the plastic sachet, PO2 Hernandez lit his cigarette as the pre-
arranged signal for the consummation of the sale. At this juncture, the rest of the team
ran towards Guanzon and assisted in his arrest. PO3 Paulos frisked Guanzon and
recovered from him the marked money. He also recovered from him another plastic
sachet of white crystalline substance. Thereafter, they informed Guanzon of his
constitutional rights and brought him, together with the confiscated sachets, to their
office.

At the office, PO2 Hernandez marked the sachet bought from Guanzon as specimen
"A", and the sachet recovered from Guanzon as specimen "B". Thereafter, the sachets
were delivered by PO2 Hernandez to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service for chemical
examination. Both plastic sachets of white crystalline substance yielded positive results
for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu based on the Chemistry
Report.

The RTC rendered its decision finding Ricardo C. Guanzon is hereby found GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. Guanzon appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. He argued
that the police officers disregarded the mandatory procedures in the preservation of the
integrity of the seized drugs under Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165. In particular, no inventory and photographs were
submitted and formally offered in court, and nowhere in the records showed that the
buy-bust team contacted, or even made an attempt to do so, any representative from the
media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected public official. Moreover,
Guanzon pointed out inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers as to how
the buybust operation was conducted. The CA rendered a Decision affirming in toto the
RTC Decision. The CA found that the inconsistencies referred to by Guanzon were
minor discrepancies and pertained to peripheral matters which did not affect the
credibility of the police officers. It also ruled that the totality of the evidence adduced by
the prosecution, both testimonial and documentary, showed an unbroken chain of
custody.

ISSUE: whether the RTC and the CA was correct in finding Guanzon guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes charged despite the alleged non-compliance with the
mandatory requirements laid down under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR.

RULING: NO

After a careful evaluation of the entire records of the case, we find that the evidence
presented by the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the
seized drugs. Consequently, the integrity and identity of the seized drugs were not
proven beyond reasonable doubt.

First, we examine the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution. Among the
prosecution witnesses are SPO2 Abalos (team leader of the buy-bust team) and PO3
Paulos (team member).

To recall, there are two drug specimens presented to the court. One is from the plastic
sachet bought by the poseur-buyer ("bought drug") and the other was confiscated upon
frisking of Guanzon ("confiscated drug"). In his direct examination, PO3 Paulos
narrated that he was the one who conducted the bodily search on Guanzon and thus,
had first possession of the confiscated drug. He turned it over to SPO2 Abalos, who
then had possession of the same up to the police station. As to the bought drug, PO3
Paulos had to be asked twice before he answered that he did not know what happened
to the same. During hearing, SPO2 Abalos's testimony totally contradicts PO3 Paulos's
testimony as to who had possession of the confiscated drug from the area of arrest up to
the police station. According to PO3 Paulos, he gave it to SPO2 Abalos. On the other
hand, SPO2 Abalos narrated that PO3 Paulos had possession of the same during that
interval of time. Clearly, there is already a gap in the chain of custody.

With regard to the bought drug, SPO2 Abalos admitted that he saw the same
"immediately in the office". Thus, based on the testimonies of both SPO2 Abalos and
PO3 Paulos, no one explicitly testified to seeing the bought drug from the hands of
Guanzon to PO2 Hernapdez. Only PO2 Hernandez can testify on the chain of custody
of the said specimen.

However, during direct examination, PO2 Hernandez (the defense did not conduct
cross examination) did not mention the handling of the bought drug after the arrest. His
testimony pertained only to the specifics of the buy-bust operation and did not mention
the custody and handling of the seized drug.

Given the foregoing observations, the testimonial evidence adduced by the prosecution,
on its own, clearly failed to establish the chain of custody of both drug specimens.
Although the seized drugs were marked, circumstances surrounding the marking, such
as the author, the time, and the place of marking, were not clearly established. Guanzon
was also not present during the said marking.

We now examine the documentary evidence before the Court. In its Decision, the CA
provided in a chart the list of documentary evidence presented by the prosecution and
ruled that the same evidence likewise established the chain of custody.

1. Request for Laboratory Examination;

2. Initial Laboratory Report dated July 28, 2003 signed by PSI Timario;
3. Chemistry Report No. D-947-03 signed by PSI Timario;
4. Certification signed by PSI Timario; and
5. Sinumpaang Salaysay signed by PO3 Paulos and SPO2 Abalos.
None of these pieces of documentary evidence prove the chain of custody of the seized
drugs. As previously discussed, there is already an unmistakable gap in the chain of
custody from the place of arrest to the police station. The Sinumpaang Salaysay of PO3
Paulos and SPO2 Abalos also made no mention of any details regarding the identity of
each individual in the chain of custody, and the manner of handling the seized drugs.
As previously noted, SPO2 Abalos merely testified that he was beside PO2 Hernandez
during the marking and before submitting the marked specimens for examination.
Taking this into consideration, as well as the absence of the accused during the
marking, and the lack of a categorical statement by PO2 Hernandez that he is the author
of the marking, we find that the first link in the chain of custody is broken. With regard
to the second link, the contradicting testimonies of PO3 Paulos and SPO2 Abalos on the
identity of the officer who had custody of the seized drugs from the place of arrest to
the police station already cast serious doubts on whether the drugs brought to the
police station is the same drugs seized from Guanzon at the place of arrest.

Since the prosecution miserably failed to establish the first two links in this case, there is
no more need to discuss the subsequent links. The totality of the evidence presented
failed to prove the circumstances surrounding the marking of the seized drugs and the
identity of the individual handling the same from the place of arrest, up to the police
station. The broken links in the chain of custody, taken together with the absence or non-
submission of inventory and photographs to the court, show an utter lack of effort on the
part of the police officers to comply with the mandatory procedures under the law. We
cannot turn a blind eye on such blatant violations of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, a
substantive law. Section 21 of the same, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, serves as a
procedural safeguard against abuse of police authorities in the conduct of their office
through frame-up, and other similar operations related to drug cases.

Given the gravity of the penalty imposed in drug cases, it is incumbent upon this Court
to give teeth to the law, specifically Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No.
10640, which essentially protects the right of the innocent to be presumed as such. This
does not mean that we tolerate or encourage criminality. The primordial duty of the
Court is to ensure that safeguards provided by the Constitution and the law, are properly
in place and working. In sum, to be excused from non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, the prosecution must establish each link in the
chain of custody, and provide justifiable grounds for any gap in the chain. Non-
compliance with the said provision and its IRR triggers the duty of the prosecution to
present evidence that would establish every link in the chain of custody to ensure that
the identity and integrity of the seized drug is duly preserved. Thus, the identity of the
individual handling the seized drug and the manner of handling, like the elements of the
offense, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to prove the same beyond
reasonable doubt, constrains this Court to rule for an acquittal.

4. G.R. No. 198450 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.

FERNANDO RANCHE HAVANA a.k.a. FERNAMDO RANCHE ABANA, Accused-

Doctrine: "Statutory rules on preserving the chain of custody of confiscated prohibited

drugs and related items are designed to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence
to be presented against the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful
prosecution of illegal possession or illegal sale of dangerous drugs

Facts: A civilian informant, one "Droga", went to Police Station 10, Punta Princesa,Cebu
City and reported to the duty officer SPO1 Espenido that the appellant was actively
engaged in the illegal drug trade. Espenido immediately assembled a buy-bust team, with
him as the team leader, the civilian asset and with PO2Enriquez, SPO1 Cañete, and SPO1
Nuñez. The police team designated the unnamed "civilian informant" as poseur-buyer
and provided him with a P100.00marked money bill. They saw the "civilian informant"
handling over the marked P100.00 bill to the appellant, who in exchange gave to the
former a plastic pack containing Shabu. Once arrested, SPO1 Espenido recovered the
P100.00 marked money from the appellant while the plastic pack was given by the
"civilian informant" to SPO1Espenido. The appellant was taken to the police station for
investigation. The P100.00 marked money and the plastic pack containing the suspected
shabu were turned over to SPO2 Nuñez who marked the plastic pack with "FA" the
initials of herein appellant. He then prepared a letter requesting for examination of the
item seized from the appellant addressed to the PNP Crime Laboratory. PCI Salinas, a
forensic chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory of Brgy. Apas, Cebu City, testified that he
conducted a laboratory examination of the recovered specimen that yielded "positive
result for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug."11

Issue:
1. Whether coordination with the PDEA is an indispensable requirement before police
authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation

2. Whether the prosecution failed to establish a continuous and unbroken chain of

custody of the seized illegal drug leading to a lack of integrity of the evidence in view of
the police officers’ non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA9165.

Held:
The accused is hereby acquitted.

1. No. Coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement before police
authorities may carry out a buy-bust operation; that in fact, even the absence of
coordination with the PDEA will not invalidate a buy-bust operation. Neither is the
presentation of the informant indispensable to the success inprosecuting drug-related
cases. Informers are almost always never presented in court because of the need to
preserve their invaluable service to the police. Unless their testimony is absolutely
essential to the conviction of the accused, their testimony may be dispensed with since
their narrations would be merely corroborative to the testimonies of the buy-bust team.

2. Yes. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must
be duly established: (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." The dangerous
drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence
beyond reasonable doubt plus the fact of its delivery and/or sale are both vital and
essential to a judgment of conviction in a criminal case. It must be established with
unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against
the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that in ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning
the identity of the evidence are removed. Measured by the foregoing yardstick, we find
that the prosecution utterly failed to establish convincingly the chain of custody of the
alleged seized plastic pack subject matter hereof. In fact only PO2 Enriquez and SPO1
Cañete testified in respect to the identity of the alleged evidence. However, from their
testimonies, the prosecution was not able to account for the linkages in the chain while
the plastic pack was not or no longer in their respective possession. While both witnesses
testified that after the sale and apprehension of the appellant, the poseur-buyer turned
over the subject pack of shabu to their team leader SPO1 Espenido, there is no record as
to what happened after the turn-over. SPO1 Espenido to whom the specimen was
allegedly surrendered by the poseur-buyer was not presented in court to identify the
person to whom it was given thereafter and the condition thereof while it was in his
possession and control. The prosecution did not bother to offer any explanation for his
non-presentation as a witness. We also take note that the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses failed to identify the person to whom the specimen was given at the police
station. All that has been said is that the investigator, SPO2 Nuñez, marked the specimen.
But this statement did not necessarily mean that he was the same officer who received
the same from either PO2 Enriquez or SPO1 Cañete. True, PO2 Enriquez claimed that he
personally delivered to the crime laboratory the specimen attached to the letter-request;
nonetheless, he did not categorically testify that the substance presented in court was the
very same substance delivered to the crime laboratory for analysis. In the case at bench,
this Court finds it exceedingly difficult to believe that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the drug have been properly preserved by the apprehending officers. The inexplicable
failure of the police officers to testify as to what they did with the alleged drug while in
their respective possession resulted in a breach or break in the chain of custody of the
drug.

5.PP vs Ubungen y Pullido (Ms. Dalian)

6.PP vs Moner y Adam (Ms. Fernandez)

FACTS:
On April 23, 2005, the police operatives of Las Piñas Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs
Special Operation Task Force (SAIDSOTF) had arrested a certain Joel Taudil for
possession of illegal drugs. Upon investigation, they gathered from Taudil that the
source of the illegal drugs was Teng Moner who hails from Tandang Sora, Quezon City.

As per this information, Police Chief Inspector Jonathan Cabal formed a team that would
conduct a buy-bust operation for the apprehension of accused-appellant. The marked and
boodle money were given to PO2 Panopio who acted as the poseur-buyer.
Before proceeding with the buy-bust operation, the team prepared the pre-operation
report addressed to the PDEA, the authority to operate outside their jurisdiction and the
coordination paper. Thereafter, they proceeded to Camp Karingal, Quezon City for
proper coordination. Thereafter, the team together with Taudil and a CPD-DIID
personnel proceeded to the house of the accused. Upon reaching the place they made a
survellance and assumed their respective positions.

While outside the gate, Taudil summoned accused-appellant and the latter came out after
a few minutes. The two men talked with each other in the Muslim dialect. Taudil
introduced PO2 Panopio as his friend to accused-appellant and told him that PO2
Panopio was interested to buy shabu. PO2 Panopio asked for the price of five (5) grams of
shabu. Accused-appellant replied that the same would cost him P8,000.00 and asked him
if he has the money. When PO2 Panopio confirmed that he has the money with him,
accused-appellant asked them to wait and he went inside the house. When he returned
after a few minutes, he handed a plastic sachet containing a substance suspected as shabu
to PO2 Panopio who in turn gave him the marked and boodle money. Accused-appellant
was about to count the money when PO2 Panopio gave the pre-arranged signal to his
team and introduced himself as [a] police officer.

Accused-appellant resisted arrest and ran inside the house but PO2 Panopio was able to
catch up with him. The other members of the team proceeded inside the house and they
saw the other accused gather[ed] around a table re-packing shabu. PO3 Lirio confiscated
the items from them and placed the same inside a plastic bag.

After accused-appellant and his co-accused were arrested, the team proceeded to the Las
Piñas City Police Station. The items confiscated from them were turned over by PO2
Panopio to PO3 Dalagdagan who marked them in the presence of the police operatives,
accused-appellant and his co-accused. PO3 Dalagdagan prepared the corresponding
inventory of the confiscated items. The specimens were then brought to the police crime
laboratory for testing. The specimens yielded positive to the test for methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.

Consequently, a case for Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 was filed against
accused-appellant and another for Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 against
him and his co-accused.

The trial court convicted Moner on the charge of selling shabu while, at the same time,
acquitting him and his co-accused of the charge of possession of illegal drugs.

On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of RTC.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the non-presentation of informant to the court who pointed to him as
supplier of shabu is required? NO

2. Whether the failure of the arresting officer to comply with the statutorily
mandated procedure for the handling and custody of the dangerous drugs will
render the drugs inadmissible? NO

HELD:
1. We reiterate our pronouncement on this matter in the recent case of People v. Lafaran10:

It has oft been held that the presentation of an informant as witness is not regarded
as indispensable to the success of a prosecution of a drug-dealing accused. As a rule,
the informant is not presented in court for security reasons, in view of the need to
protect the informant from the retaliation of the culprit arrested through his efforts.
Thereby, the confidentiality of the informant's identity is protected in deference to
his invaluable services to law enforcement. Only when the testimony of the
informant is considered absolutely essential in obtaining the conviction of the
culprit should the need to protect his security be disregarded. In the present case, as
the buy-bust operation was duly witnessed by SPO2 Aro and PO3 Pera, their
testimonies can take the place of that of the poseur-buyer.

Thus, we concur with the appellate court's finding that there is no need to present the
informant because PO2 Panopio, who acted as the poseur-buyer, had testified in court.
Furthermore, the other members of the buy-bust team, namely PO3 Junnifer Tuldanes
(PO3 Tuldanes) and PO3 Edwin Lirio (PO3 Lirio), gave clear and credible testimonies
with regard to the criminal transaction that was consummated by appellant and PO2
Panopio.

2. We can give no credence to Moner's contention that the prosecution failed to prove an
unbroken chain of custody in consonance with the requirements of law.

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition. [Section 1(b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002]
We have consistently ruled that noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165 will not necessarily render the illegal drugs seized or
confiscated in a buy-bust operation inadmissible. Strict compliance with the letter of
Section 21 is not required if there is a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized illegal drugs have been preserved, i.e., the illegal drugs being offered
in court as evidence is, without a specter of doubt, the very same item recovered in the
buy-bust operation.13

To reiterate, noncompliance with the chain of custody rule is excusable as long as there
exist justifiable grounds which prevented those tasked to follow the same from strictly
conforming to the said directive. The preceding discussion clearly show that the
apprehending officers in this case did not totally disregard prescribed procedure but,
instead, demonstrated substantial compliance with what was required. It was likewise
explained that the divergence in procedure was not arbitrary or whimsical but because
the buy-bust team decided that they could not linger at the crime scene as it would
unduly expose them to security risks since they were outside their area of responsibility.

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be

7.People vs Cuevas y Martinez

Facts:

This case stemmed from three (3) Informations 5 charging Cuevas of violating, inter alia,
Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution alleged that at around ten
(10) o'clock in the morning of January 10, 2014, operatives of the Philippine National
Police Intelligence Branch, Laguna Police Provincial Office (PNP-IB-LPPO), in
coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), conducted a
buybust operation against Cuevas, during which: (a) he allegedly sold a plastic sachet
containing 0.04 gram of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu to the
poseur-buyer; (b) during the search incidental to his arrest, two (2) plastic sachets
containing an aggregate weight of 0.17 gram 6 of suspected methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, as well as various drug paraphernalia, were recovered from him.
After marking the seized items, the apprehending officers took Cuevas to the barangay
hall where the items were inventoried and photographed in the presence of Barangay
Councilor Marcelino P. Ameglio, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Noemi
Quiloy, and media representative Zen Trinidad. Cuevas and the seized items were then
taken to the police station where a request for laboratory examination was prepared, and
thereafter, such request and the seized items were taken to the crime laboratory. After
qualitative examination, 7 the seized items tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 8 For his part, Cuevas denied the charges
against him. He narrated that on the date and time he was arrested, he was in his house,
together with his live-in partner and three (3) children, when suddenly, a police officer
peeked inside, pointed a gun at him, and called him "Tolit." Cuevas told them that he was
not "Tolit Garcia," but the police officers did not believe him and instead, started
searching his house for shabu. When the police did not find any, they hit him and took
him to the police station where he was forced to admit ownership of a box allegedly
recovered from his house. Thereafter, he learned that he was already charged with crimes
involving illegal drugs.

Issue: Whether or not the police officers complied with the chain of custody rule?

Held:
Yes. The Court notes that the buy-bust team had sufficiently complied with the chain of
custody rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
In this case, it is glaring from the records that after Cuevas was arrested during the buy-
bust operation and subsequently searched, the buy-bust team immediately took custody
of the seized plastic sachets and conducted the marking thereof at the place where Cuevas
was arrested. Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to the barangay hall to conduct
the inventory and photography of the seized items in the presence of an elected public
official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative. The plastic sachets were then
secured, taken to the police station, and thereafter, to the crime laboratory where they
tested positive for shabu. Finally, the same specimens were duly identified in court. In
view of the foregoing, the Court holds that there is sufficient compliance with the chain
of custody rule, and thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have
been preserved. Perforce, Cuevas' conviction must stand.

8. PP vs Saragena (c/o Mr. Gultiano)

9. PP vs Carlit y Gawat (c/o Ms. Libo-on)

Facts:
P03 Christian Carvajal was assigned at [the] Dagupan City Police Station when, on 26
February 2011, he was tasked to act as poseur buyer in the buy bust operation against
Jocelyn Carlit in the squatters area in Mayombo District of the city. Their office received
information that Carlit is engaged in illegal activities, hence, the buy bust operation.
During their preparation, they recorded the buy bust money to be used in the police
blotter. The police officer did not know whether there was coordination with the
[Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency]. It was around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon when
he, with a civilian asset, went to conduct the buy bust at Highlander, Mayombo District,
Dagupan City. They approached the Accused [herein accused-appellant] and personally
bought shabu from her, handing the buy bust money consisting of five (5) 100-peso bills,
while the Accused handed a sachet of shabu. After he got hold of the shabu, the police
officer introduced himself as a police officer and arrested the Accused. The shabu was
marked in the police station with the officer's initials and also recovered the buy bust
money from the Accused. The officer declared that he did not know the Accused prior to
the buy bust and confirmed the identity only through the asset. The officer said that the
Accused and his supervising officer were both present when he prepared the confiscation
receipt which was signed by a DOJ representative although there was no media. At the
police station, the police blotter, request for laboratory examination and coordination
with the PDEA as well as his affidavit were prepared. The police officer also narrated that
he was the only one in sole possession of the specimen from its seizure up to the station
where it was only shown to the investigator and thereafter brought by him to the crime
laboratory, where it was received by PSI Myrna Malojo. The specimen weighing 0.07
gram tested positive as methamphetamine hydrochloride according to PSI Myrna Malojo
Todefio who received the same and who conducted the examination. She placed her
findings in an Initial Laboratory Report and then the Final Chemistry Report No. D-023-
1 IL. The officer identified the plastic sachet containing the specimen with her marking
the same with "D-023-11L." The specimen was then handed to the evidence custodian P02
Manuel. An information was therefore filed against Carlit, charging her with the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, specifically, methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The
accusatory portion of the information reads: That on or about the 26th day of February
2011, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, JOCELYN CARLIT y GAWAT, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally, sell and deliver to a customer Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride contained in one (1) heat sealed plastic sachet, weighing more or less 0.07
grams in exchange for P500.00 without authority to do.

Issue :
Whether or not the courts a quo correctly convicted Carlit for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs.
Ruling:
The Ruling of the RTC After evaluating the evidence on record, the R TC held that the
prosecution established with moral certainty that accused-appellant was caught in
flagrante delicto in a legitimate buy-bust operation. The exchange of marked money for
a sachet of shabu between P03 Carvajal, on the one hand, and Carlit, on the other,
constituted a violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, so the trial court ruled. Absent any
finding that the buy-bust team was inspired by some improper motive in effecting the
arrest, the R TC held that the testimony of P03 Carvajal deserved full weight and credit.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby finds the accused GUILTY of the
crime of Violation of Section 5 of Art. II of RA 9165, beyond reasonable doubt, and is
hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos. Subsequently, the case was elevated to CA In
her brief, Carlit interposed the defense of denial. She claimed that she was illegally
arrested, and that the shabu that she allegedly sold to P03 Carvajal was not from her. She
further questioned the chain of custody of the purported object of the sale, and points out
that the buy-bust team failed to inventory, mark, and photograph the drugs in her
presence, with a representative of the Department of Justice and a barangay official,
immediately after her arrest. The Courts' Ruling Section 5 of R.A. 9165 provides: Section
5 .. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the, quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. In a catena of
cases, this Court laid down the essential elements to be duly established for a successful
prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, viz: (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 payment therefor. Briefly, the delivery of the illicit drug to
the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller successfully
consummate the buy-bust transaction. What is material, therefore, is the proof that the
transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.
The exception found in the IRR of RA 9165 comes into play when strict compliance with
the proscribed procedures is not observed.This saving clause, however, applies only (1)
where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the
cited justifiable grounds, and (2) when the prosecution established that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. The prosecution, thus, loses
the benefit of invoking the presumption of regularity and bears the burden of proving -
with moral certainty - that the illegal drug presented in court is the same drug that was
confiscated from the accused during his arrest. The failure to immediately mark the
seized items, taken together with the absence of a representative from the media to
witness the inventory, without any justifiable explanation, casts doubt on whether the
chain of custody is truly unbroken. Serious uncertainty is created on the identity of the
corpus delicti in view of the broken linkages in the chain of custody. The prosecution has
the burden of proving each link in the chain of custody - from the initial contact between
buyer and seller, the offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and
the delivery of the illegal drug. The prosecution must prove with certainty each link in
this chain of custody and each link must be the subject of strict scrutiny by the courts to
ensure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an offense Plainly,
there was a failure of the prosecution to prove that the chain of custody was unbroken
due to (1) its failure to offer the testimony of the evidence custodian, and (2) non-
compliance with Paragraph 1, Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, without justifiable
reason. As such, the guilt of the accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable
doubt, warranting her acquittal of the crime charged.
 10. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JEHAR REYES;
GR NO. 199277 OCTOBER 19,2016

FACTS:

A buy-bust operation was conducted at Reyes’ residence to which Reyes was

arrested. PO2 Villahermosa informed the Reyes he was under arrest, 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 of violation 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 from doubt.Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain of custody
concerned the absence of any representative of the media or of the Department of Justice
(DOJ), and of the elected public official during the buy-bust operation and at the time of
the confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused in the area of operation.And,
lastly, the arresting officers did not prepare any inventory of the confiscated items, and
did not take photographs of the items.

11. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FERNANDO GERONIMO Y

AGUSTINE, ALIAS "NANDING BAKULAW", Accused-Appellant.

An informant arrived in the office of the Mayor Special Action Team (MSAT) and
reported that a certain “Nanding Bakulaw” was engaged in the illegal drug activities
victimizing young adults in Interior Villa Sanchez, Pasig City. A buy-bust team was
then formed. Two P100 peso bill which served as marked money was handed to PO1
SABO who acted as poseur-buyer. The police operatives arrived at the pinpointed place
and met Nanding Bakulaw wherein the informant told Nanding that they needed P200
worth of shabu. When the sale was consummated, PO1 SABO then waved a white face
towel indicating the pre-arranged signal then introduced herself to appellant as police
officer. PO1 Sabo placed her initials "JAS" on the confiscated shabu. PO1 Sabo also
confiscated from appellant the buy bust money consisting of two (2) One Hundred Peso
bills which bear the initials "JS" in the upper right portion of the bill. Apellant denied
the charges against him.
RTC: found the accused-appellant guilty as charged on the basis that he had been
caught in flagrante delicto illegally selling shabu
CA: upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant, concurring with the RTC that the
Prosecution had established that the arrest was pursuant to a lawful buy-bust
operation, for which the police officers did not need a warrant
ISSUE: Whether or not appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt in selling shabu. –
No.
RULING: Appellant is acquitted since the State failed to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt due to the lapses in the chain of custody engendered. The foregoing
rules under RA 9165 require the marking of the seized drug immediately upon seizure.
Such marking is the starting point in the custodial chain. However, records show that
the procedure laid down by RA 9165 and its IRR was not followed by the agents of the
State. First, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken either at the place of the
entrapment and arrest, or even later on after the buy-bust team had brought the
accused-appellant to their office. The photograph would have visually preserved the
seized shabu for proving the corpus delicti. Secondly, although PO1 Janet Sabo, the
poseur-buyer, attested that she had placed her initials "JAS" on the confiscated shabu at
the place of the entrapment right after the accused-appellant had been apprised of his
constitutional rights by PO3 Hunilassan Salisa, none of the members of the buy-bust
team saw the need to photograph the seized shabu and the confiscated buy-bust bills
then and even later on. And, thirdly, no elected official, or member of the media, or
representative of the Department of Justice was present.
Section 21(a) of the IRR served as a saving mechanism wherein the State should at
least disclose to the trial court the reason for the lapse or gap in compliance with the
procedure. However, the Prosecution tendered no explanation of why none of the
members of the buy-bust team had seen to the taking of any photograph of the
seized shabu immediately after the arrest, or even afterwards. Likewise, there was no
explanation given as to why they did not ensure the presence of an elected official, or
member of the media, or representative of the Department of Justice during the
entrapment. Since the State carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the
offense, any substantial gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

12. Ampatuan vs. PP (c/o Ms. Olmedo)

FACTS;

On 13 October 1997, at around 10:00 a.m., police operatives PO1 Arnel Micabalo
(PO1 Micabalo) and PO2 Francisco S. Caslib (PO2 Caslib) together with around fifteen
(15) to sixteen (16) police members belonging from the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Compound in Tagum City and Panabo Police Station were given a briefing by their team
leader, a certain SPO1 Derrayal, regarding a buy-bust operation they would later conduct
that day against a certain suspected drug pusher by the name of Totong Ibrahim
(Ibrahim) who lives near the Coca-Cola warehouse at Barangay Cagangohan, Panabo
City, Davao del Norte.

The buy-bust operation was conducted at around 1:00 p.m. of the same day. Police
officers PO1 Micabalo and PO2 Caslib, prepared marked money in the amount of P500.00
and went to the house of Ibrahim posing as buyers. The rest of the team positioned
themselves at the grassy area nearby awaiting for the pre-arranged signal from PO1
Micabalo and PO2 Caslib. The policemen saw the accused-appellant Ruel Ampatuan (Mr.
Ampatuan) and his wife Linda, at the gate of the fence. They talked to the couple and
pretended to buy for a party, marijuana worth P500.00. The couple told them to wait
outside the fence and then went inside the house. Several minutes later, the couple came
out with another man identified as Maguid Lumna (Lumna). Mr. Ampatuan asked for
the payment. The poseur-buyers handed the marked money to Mr. Ampatuan, who in
turn handed it to his wife, Linda. Mr. Ampatuan then showed the police officers
the marijuana contained in one pack. This was placed inside a black bag and given to
the poseur-buyers. The pre-arranged signal of talking aloud was made and the rest of the
police officers proceeded to the scene. The couple and Lumna were arrested and brought
to the Panabo Police Station.

On 23 October 1997, the confiscated object was turned over by the Panabo Police
Station to Forensic Chemist Noemi Austero (Austero) of the PNP Crime Laboratory of
Davao City. Upon examination, the sample taken yielded positive result for the presence
of marijuana. The total weight of the confiscated specimen as testified by Austero was
approximately 1.3 kilos.
The version of the defense is:

On 13 October 1997, Mr. Ampatuan, his wife Linda and bodyguard Lumna went
to the house of one Arnulfo Morales (Morales) in Tagum City to inquire about reports
that the town of Asuncion was impassable because of flooding. Mr. Ampatuan explained
in his testimony that the alleged flooding was the reason given by his debtor Muker
Ganda (Muker) to explain the belated payment of a loan. Morales advised them that they
should go directly to the house of Muker at Panabo City, Davao del Norte to collect the
amount due in his favor.

Upon boarding a bus going to Panabo City, the three met Arlene, the wife of
Ibrahim. Arlene, Lindas classmate in elementary, invited them for lunch at her house,
which was near Mukers residence. When they reached Mukers house, the latter was not
able to pay for his loan, hence they just acceded to the invitation of Arlene. While inside
the house, they saw Ibrahim outside with two companions. At that point, five police
officers entered the premises where Ibrahim was and one of them fired his gun. Ibrahim
and his companions ran, were chased by the police but were not apprehended. Failing to
capture Ibrahim, the police officers then barged back to the house where the couple,
Lumna, and Arlene were. They accused Mr. Ampatuan to be the owner of the black bag
containing marijuana samples carried by the police officers. Mr. Ampatuan vehemently
denied the ownership of the same and his participation in the sale and/or possession of
illegal drugs. He explained that he and his companions were merely visitors of
Arlene. Nevertheless, the police officers insisted that he owned the samples and the black
bag and they were eventually brought to the police station.

An Information was filed against Mr. Ruel Ampatuan, Linda Ampatuan and
Maguid Lumna dated 17 March 1998 which reads:

The undersigned accuses RUEL AMPATUAN alias Ruel, LINDA

AMPATUAN alias LINDA and MAGUID LUMNA of the crime of violation
of Section 4 of Republic Act 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, as amended by BP 179 and further amended by Section 13 of
Republic Act 7659, committed as follows:

That on or about October 13, 1997, in the Municipality of

Panabo, Province of Davao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring,
confederating and mutually helping one another, without being
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell, deal and distribute two (2) packs of
dried Marijuana leaves weighing one (1) kilo and three hundred fifty
nine & 3/100 grams.[14]

Upon arraignment, the couple and Lumna entered a plea of not guilty.

On 31 January 2002, the trial court found Mr. Ampatuan guilty but acquitted Linda
and Lumna of the offense charged. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused Ruel Ampatuan alias Ruel

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and hereby
sentences him to Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine of P500, 000.00
pursuant to law. Accused Linda Ampatuan alias Linda and accused
Maguid Lumna are ACQUITTED for reasons of reasonable doubt. The two
packs of dried marijuanaleaves weighing a total of 1.3 kilos are ordered
 confiscated in favor of the government and to be destroyed in accordance
with law. Costs de oficio.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with the judgment of the trial court. The
appellate court ruled that the prosecution proved the requisites for illegal sale of
prohibited drugs under Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the crime of violation of Section 4 of Republic Act 6425, otherwise
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by BP 179 and further amended
by Section 13 of Republic Act 9165 against Ampatuans was correct.

2. Whether or not there was irregularity on the performance of duties of the police officers
related to the apprehension.

HELD:
The Courts Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled YES, there was a violation of section 4 RA 6424,
as amended by section 13, RA 9165. In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs,
the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that
the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and
seller were identified. The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial
courts finding of appellants guilt. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated
drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked
money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the
accused. The presentation in court of the corpus delicti the body or substance of the crime
establishes the fact that a crime has actually been committed.

As per record of the case, this Court is convinced that there was complete
compliance with all the requisites under the law.

The prosecution established that at 1 p.m. of 13 October 1997, a buy-bust operation

was conducted by the members of the police force to entrap a drug pusher named
Ibrahim. However, despite his absence in the target area, the entrapment operation
ensued within the same place between the police officers who acted as poseur-buyers and
the accused-appellant Mr. Ampatuan.
We find credit to the straight-forward testimony of PO2 Caslib. Absence of any ill-will on
the part of the prosecution witnesses who were the best witnesses in prosecution for
illegal sale of drugs, we sustain the findings of the lower courts.
 As for the second issue, the accused-appellant challenges the regularity of the
performance of duties of the police officers in the purported transaction of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. He argues that the police officers forced him to admit the ownership of
the marijuana samples due to their failure to apprehend their real target, Ibrahim.

A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to
for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their
criminal plan. In this jurisdiction, the operation is legal and has been proved to be an
effective method of apprehending drug peddlers, provided that due regard to
constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.

In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given

to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are
police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
unless there is evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to
falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity
in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellants self-serving and uncorroborated
denial.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 25 June 2008 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 00343, affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Panabo City, Branch 4, finding accused-appellant Ruel Ampatuan guilty of
violation of Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6425[38], as amended by Section 13, Republic
Act No. 7659, as further amended by Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00
is hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

13. PP vs Miranda y Tigas (c/o Mr. Reyes)

FACTS:

Accused Jovencito Miranda was caught selling illegal in a buy-bust operation by the
Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council along Infanta Street, Brgy. Olympia, Makati City.
Thereafter, he was brought to the barangay hall of Barangay Olympia where the seized
sachets of shabu were marked in the presence of Miranda and Brgy. Kagawad Noe
Lyndon Gonzales among others, and photos of seized drugs, together with the witnesses,
were likewise taken.

However, accused Miranda denied the allegations against him, claiming that at around
3:30 in the afternoon of March 18, 2013, he was in No. 7420 Infanta Street, Makati City
installing a window screen of a house when two (2) unidentified persons suddenly held
his back, handcuffed him, and boarded him inside a van. He averred that he was taken
to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Office, where he was photographed with two (2) plastic
sachets placed on a table. Thereafter, he was brought to the barangay hall and was made
to face a barangay kagawad. Shortly after, he was again photographed together with said
official and the plastic sachets. They proceeded to the Scene of the Crime Operatives
Office and then to the Pasay Hospital. Consequently, Miranda was placed in detention at
the Criminal Investigation Division for two (2) weeks

The RTC ruled founding Miranda guilty for violation of Section 5 or RA9165.
Accordingly, it declared that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
properly preserved from the time of their seizure by Encarnacion until their turnover to
PSI Sahagun at the PNP crime laboratory. Moreover, the CA affirmed the decision of the
RTC stating that the police officers - notwithstanding their failure to immediately mark,
inventory, and photograph the seized items at the place of arrest - substantially complied
with the chain of custody rule, as it was shown that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the said items were preserved. It added that the non-presentation of PSI Sahagun's
testimony, as well as the use of Miranda's alias in marking the seized items (i.e.,
"THUNDER" and "THUNDER-1"), neither affected their integrity and evidentiary value.
Besides, the marking, inventory, and photography of the items were witnessed by
a barangay kagawad, which thus belied any incidents of tampering or switching of
evidence.

ISSUE:

WON the CA correctly upheld Miranda’s conviction for the crimes charged.

RULING:

No, the CA erred in its decision.

Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers must
follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and
evidentiary value.25 Under the said section, the apprehending team shall, among
others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and
photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom
the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the
seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24)
hours from confiscation for examination.26 In the case of People v. Mendoza,27 the Court
stressed that "[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or
the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and
marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, 'planting' or contamination of the
evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [RA] 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugsl that were evidence herein
of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the
incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have
preserved an unbroken chain of custody.

In this case, the Court finds that the police officers committed unjustified deviations from
the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Miranda.

The appeal is GRANTED and the decision of CA is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Jovencito
Miranda is ACQUITED of the crimes charged.

14. PP vs Lara III y Agatep (Ms. Amorio)

FACTS:

The Informations charged Mammad, Tampoy, and Sariol with violation of Section 5, Article
II, or Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, while three (3) separate charges for violating Section 11 or
Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were filed against Mammad, Nicolas Lara III y Agatep, and
Randy Alcayde y Magundayao.

That on or about the 4th day of August 2004 in Quezon City, the confidential informant
introduced them to PO2 Panlilio and told them that the latter was going to buy shabu worth
P500.00. Mammad then gave one (1) plastic sachet of shabu to Tampoy who, in turn, handed it
to PO2 Panlilio. After Sariol received the marked money as payment, PO2 Panlilio scratched his
head, as the pre-arranged signal. He then introduced himself as a police officer. The back-up
police officers rushed to the scene and secured the area. They arrested accused-appellants and
were able to recover plastic sachets of shabu from Mammad, Lara, and Alcayde.

Upon arrival at the police station, the police officers placed their markings on the seized
plastic sachets and turned them over to the investigator. They sent the specimens to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory for examination. Subsequently, the recovered substances
yielded a positive result for shabu.

ISSUE:
 Whether the police officers failed to follow the procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II
of R.A. 9165

RULING:

The appeal lacks merit.

Here, while it is true that the police officers failed to make an inventory and take photographs,
the prosecution was able to prove, however, that the sachet of shabu confiscated during the buy-
bust operation was the same item presented and identified before the court. They were able to
maintain the integrity of the seized drug and establish that the links in the chain of custody were
not compromised. After seizure of the subject specimen, the authorities went to the police station
where PO2 Panlilio immediately marked it with "MSP/LBT", which stands for his initials and that
of Tampoy. He then turned it over to the police investigator, PO1 Darwin Pua.[15] Thereafter, PO1
Pua prepared the letter request for laboratory examination dated August 5, 2004. PO2 Ronald
Adona then submitted the seized shabu to the crime laboratory, which was received by the
Forensic Chemical Officer, Engineer Leonard M. Jabonillo. After examination, the submitted
substance tested positive for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, as reflected in
Chemistry Report.

Verily, the prosecution was able to establish the unbroken chain of custody over the recovered
drug, from the time it came into the possession of the apprehending officers, to the time it was
brought to the police station, then to the crime laboratory for testing, up to the time it had to be
offered in evidence. The Court, therefore, finds that the courts below aptly held that the
requirements under R.A. No. 9165 had been sufficiently complied with.

Wherefore, the petition is dismissed.

15. PP vs Amin y Ampuan

Facts:

On Jan. 2, 2004, the PNP officers of Cagayan de Oro conducted a buy-bust

operation and found Amin in custody of 0.09 gram of shabu sold to the poser buyer in
the consideration of P100. Amin was charged in violation of Sect. 5, par. 1 (illegal sale) of
RA 9165. The RTC and CA ruled against Amin and he was sentenced to life
imprisonment. The courts gave credence to the testimony of the police officers conducted
the buy-bust operation though the poseur buyer was not presented before the court, and
it was contested by Amin. The CA ruled that non-presentation of the poseur-buyer can
be fatal only if there are no other eye witnesses to the illicit transaction; wherein this case,
there were police officers considered to be within the clear seeing distance. Amin also
contested that the buy-bust operation was invalid since there was no PDEA personnel
present. The CA said that neither RA 9165 nor its IRR required PDEA’s participation in
any buy-bust operation. Lastly, the failure of the policers to immediately mark the
alleged shabu at the crime scene (but only at the police station), the CA ruled that "failure
to strictly comply with Section 21 (1), Article 11 of RA No. 9165 does not necessarily
render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him
inadmissible." It further emphasized that what is of utmost importance is the preservation
of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized
in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

WON, RTC and CA erred in finding the testimonial evidence of the police officers
as witnesses sufficient to warrant Amin’s conviction for the crimes charged.

Ruling:

No. The non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal to the cause of the

prosecution. In People v. Andaya, the court emphasized the importance of presenting the
poseur-buyer's testimony before the trial court. While there is a "need to hide the poseur-
buyer’s identities and preserve their invaluable service to the police," this consideration
cannot be applied to this case, because, as in Andaya, the "poseur-buyer and the
confidential informant were one and the same. Without the poseur buyer's testimony, the
State did not credibly incriminate the accused." The testimonies of prosecution witnesses
SPO2 Bagas, SPO2 Alvior, Jr., SPO2 Dacara, and P/Insp. Ramas (who was 10 meters
away) cannot be considered as eyewitness accounts of the illegal sale. There was no
indication that they directly saw an illegal drug being sold to the poseur-buyer. In People
v. Guzon, we held that "the police officer, who admitted that he was seven (7) to eight (8)
meters away from where the actual transaction took place, could not be deemed an
eyewitness to the crime."

Secondly, as held in Andaya’s case, the reliance on the supposed signal to establish
the consummation of the transaction between the poseur buyer and Andaya was
unwarranted because the unmitigatedly hearsay character of the signal rendered it
entirely bereft of trustworthiness. The arresting members of the buy-bust team
interpreted the signal from the anonymous poseur buyer as the sign of the consummation
of the transaction. Their interpretation, being necessarily subjective without the
testimony of the poseur buyer, unfairly threatened the libe1iy of Andaya. We should not
allow that threat to perpetuate itself. And, lastly, the reliance on the signal would deprive
Andaya the right to confront and test the credibility of the poseur buyer who supposedly
gave it.

Wherefore, the RTC and CA’s decisions were reversed and acquitted Amin from
the crime being charged.