ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.

com™

Like 0 Tweet Share Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2015 > August 2015 Decisions >G.R. No. 205823, August 17,
2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO AND GARY YUMOL Y TUAZON,*
Appellants.:

Custom Search Search

G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE BREIS Y
ALVARADO AND GARY YUMOL Y TUAZON,* Appellants.

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO AND GARY YUMOL Y
TUAZON,*Appellants.

DECISION

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated 26 June 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
04916, affirming the Decision2 dated 14 February 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Baguio
City (trial court) in Criminal Case No. 30409-R.

The Facts

Appellants Regie Breis y Alvarado (Breis) and Gary Yumol y Tuazon (Yumol) were charged with violation
of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) as follows: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
That in the afternoon of February 10, 2010, at Gov. Pack Road, this City, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy
with each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their
possession, custody and control marijuana with a recorded net weight of 8,181 grams of
dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops wrapped in plastic and further wrapped with brown
packaging tape and placed inside a brown box, without the authority of law and knowing
fully well that said dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops are dangerous drugs, in violation of
the afore-cited provisions of law.

CONTRARY TO LAW to Sec. 11 of RA 9165.3

Upon arraignment, appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial ensued, where the prosecution presented
witnesses Intelligence Officers 1 Elizer Mangili (IO1 Mangili) and Ryan Peralta (IO1 Peralta) of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency - Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR); while the defense
presented the testimonies of appellants.

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution's version of the facts, as summarized by the trial court, is as follows:
ChanRobles Intellectual Property
LawlibraryofCRAlaw

Division Around 3:00 o'clock PM of February 10, 2009 (sic), an informant went to the PDEA-CAR
field office at Melvin Jones, Harrison Road, Baguio City and offered the information that the
accused were bound to transport a box of marijuana from Baguio City to Dau, Mabalacat,
Pampanga. Mangili gathered that the accused have been frequently traveling from
 Pampanga to Baguio to get marijuana bricks from their supplier at La Trinidad, Benguet.
Mangili referred the informant to Senior PDEJA Officer Tacio for further interview and then
the matter was referred to the PDEA Officer-in-Charge Edgar Apalla, who after careful
evaluation, ordered Agent Tacio to form a team for the entrapment of the accused.

Agent Tacio created a team composed of Mangili and Peralta as arresting officer and
seizing officer, respectively, and briefed them on the operations to be conducted. Tacio
disclosed to the team that the accused were to transport by a public transport bus from
Baguio City to Dau, Pampanga bricks of marijuana packed in a carton and that the
departure from Baguio was scheduled at around 5:00 o'clock PM of that day. The accused
Breis would be in a white t-shirt with "Starbucks" logo and dark jeans while accused Yumol
would be wearing a black t-shirt with a white print and blue jeans. Both the accused were
described as standing about 5 feet and 5 inches, thin, and dark complexion.

When the briefing was through, the team proceeded to the Genesis Bus terminal at
Governor Pack Road, Baguio City at around 4:30 o'clock PM. Due to time constraints, the
PDEA team chose not to secure any warrant nor coordinate with the nearest police station.

Upon reaching the bus terminal, Mangili asked the bus conductor to identify the bus which
would leave at 5:00 o'clock PM. Mangili was directed to Genesis bus with plate number TXX
890. Thus, pretending to be passengers, Mangili and Peralta boarded the bus and they
observed two male individuals whose physical appearances fitted the descriptions given by
the informant. Both agents likewise saw a box placed in between the legs of accused Breis.

Mangili sat behind the accused while Peralta, stood near where the accused were seated.
In order to have a clearer view of the box tucked in between the feet of accused Breis if
the same fit the box described by informant, Mangili took the seat opposite where the
accused were seated and saw that the box was with the markings "Ginebra San Miguel"
and which was described by the informant. Mangili then casually asked accused Yumol who
owned the "Ginebra San Miguel" box, the accused replied that it was theirs.

Accused Yumol suddenly stood up and tried to leave but before he could do so, Peralta
August-2015 Jurisprudence blocked his way while Mangili confronted accused Breis and asked what was contained in
the box. Instead of answering, Breis shoved Mangili and tried to flee but Mangili was able
• G.R. No. 197709, August 03, 2015 - JOSE YULO to block his way as he was much larger than the accused Yumol (sic). Mangili ordered him
AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. to sit down.
SPOUSES PERLA CABAYLO DAVIS AND SCOTT DAVIS,
Respondents. Agent Peralta then summoned the back-up officers to help secure the bus and subdue the
accused. After introducing themselves as PDEA agents, Mangili asked the accused Breis to
• G.R. No. 200969, August 03, 2015 - CONSOLACION D. open the box but Breis ignored the request which made Mangili lift and open the box. He
ROMERO AND ROSARIO S.D. DOMINGO, Petitioners, v.
took one brick and discovered it was marijuana. The "Ginebra San Miguel" box yielded
ENGRACIA D. SINGSON, Respondent.
three more bricks of marijuana. Mangili then marked the items on site.
• G.R. No. 213847, August 18, 2015 - JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (THIRD Agent Peralta then informed the accused that they were being arrested for violation of Rep.
DIVISION), AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Act No. 9165 and then he read their constitutional rights in Pilipino to them.
Respondents.
Thereafter, the team returned to the PDEA-CAR office of Melvin Jones, Baguio City for
• A.C. No. 8708 (CBD Case No. 08-2192), August 12, documentation such as the preparation of the affidavits of Agents Mangili and Peralta,
2015 - SPOUSES BYRON AND MARIA LUISA Booking Sheet and Arrest Report of both accused, Request for Physical Exam and Request
SAUNDERS, Complainants, v. ATTY. LYSSA GRACE S. for Laboratory Exam. Inventory likewise was done around 7:43 o'clock PM on February 10,
PAGANO-CALDE, Respondent.
2010 at the said PDEA-CAR office.
• G.R. No. 177803, August 03, 2015 - SPOUSES
EMILIANO L. JALBAY, SR. AND MAMERTA C. JALBAY, After the documentation and inventory, the accused were brought to the Baguio General
Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) and Medico-Legal Certificates were issued showing
Respondent. that the accused had no external signs of physical injuries at the time of their examination.
Chemistry Report No. D-08-2010 indicates that the confiscated items from the accused
• G.R. No. 201365, August 03, 2015 - THE PEOPLE OF yielded positive to (sic) the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drugs (sic).4
THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUELA
FLORES Y SALAZAR @ WELLA Accused-Appellant.
Version of the Defense
• G.R. No. 198908, August 03, 2015 - VIRGINIA
OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. DEOGRACIO OCAMPO,
The defense's version of the facts, as summarized by the trial court, is as follows:
Respondent.
LawlibraryofCRAlaw

• G.R. No. 195175, August 10, 2015 - COMMISSIONER

OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. TOLEDO POWER Accused, both construction workers, left Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga for Baguio at around
COMPANY, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 199645 - TOLEDO 6:00 o'clock AM of February 9, 2010 to visit a certain Edwin Garcia, an acquaintance and a
POWER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF resident of Loakan, Baguio City. Edwin Garcia had offered the accused to be upholsterers in
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. his upholstery business way back in December of 2008.

• G.R. No. 213233, August 05, 2015 - BLISS At around 11:00 o'clock AM, the accused arrived in Baguio City and because they did not
DEVELOPMENT CORP./HOME GUARANTY know the exact address and contact number of Edwin Garcia, they took a chance and
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MONTANO DIAZ, decided to take a cab to Loakan. However, they failed to find Garcia's house despite asking
DOMINGO TAPAY, AND EDGAR H. ARREZA,
the residents of Loakan. So, they decided to go back to the Genesis bus terminal and go
Respondents.
back home to Pampanga.
• G.R. No. 197953, August 05, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (2ND Upon reaching the terminal, they ate and took the 4:30 o'clock PM bus for Pampanga.
DIVISION), QUINTIN SALUDAGA Y BORDEOS, ARTHUS They were already boarded when accused Yumol stepped out to buy a bottle of water.
ADRIATICO Y ERUDA AND ROMEO DE LUNA, Thereafter, Mangili went near accused Breis and uttered something inaudible, and thinking
Respondents. that the seat he was occupying was Mangili's, accused Breis stood up to give up his seat
but instead Mangili pushed him and accused Breis asked what seems to be the problem.
• G.R. No. 187524, August 05, 2015 - SPOUSES MARIA Mangili then asked if he owns the box under the seat in front of his, Breis replied in the
BUTIONG AND FRANCISCO VILLAFRIA, SUBSTITUTED negative. Mangili then opened the box, got one of the bricks contained therein, sliced the
BY DR. RUEL B. VILLAFRIA, Petitioners, v. MA. GRACIA
same and saw that it was marijuana. Accused Breis, infuriated, retorted that the
RIÑOZA PLAZO AND MA. FE RIÑOZA ALARAS,
accusation is baseless and malicious.
Respondents.

• G.R. No. 209447, August 11, 2015 - PRESIDENTIAL Mangili then summoned his companions and they dragged accused Breis outside the bus
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT (PCGG), when suddenly, accused Yumol arrived and inquired what the commotion was all about.
Petitioner, v. HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS, The group then asked if he (Yumol) was a companion of accused Breis and when he
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH answered positively, Yumol was likewise apprehended.
59, MAKATI CITY AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS
BANK (UCPB), Respondents.; G.R. NO. 210901 - Both the accused were then brought to the PDEA Office and were forced to admit
PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT ownership of the box of marijuana, but they refused and thus they were hit with the bricks
(PCGG), Petitioner, v. HON. WINLOVE M. DUMAYAS,
of marijuana. One of the agents even squeezed the scrotum of accused Yumol in the hope
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
59, MAKATI CITY AND UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS that he will admit ownership over the box of marijuana.5
LIFE ASSURANCE CORPORATION (COCOLIFE),
Respondents.
The Trial Court's Ruling
• G.R. No. 188739, August 05, 2015 - BENJAMIN E.
RAVAGO, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN BANK & The trial court gave credence to the prosecution's version, upholding the presumption of regularity in
TRUST COMPANY, SUBSTITUTED BY BRIGHT favor of the PDEA agents and finding no evil or ill-motive on their part. On the other hand, the trial court
VENTURES REALTY, INC., Respondents. found appellants' defense of frame-up too incredible and outlandishly preposterous. The trial court also
held that the warrantless search and seizure and the warrantless arrest of appellants were valid. The
• G.R. No. 215714, August 12, 2015 - OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EFREN BASAL
CAYAS, Accused-Appellant.
• A.M. No. 11238-Ret., August 18, 2015 - IN RE:
EXPIRATION OF FIXED TERM OF OFFICE OF ATTY.
SAADUDDIN A. ALAUYA, OFFICE OF THE
JURISCONSULT, ZAMBOANGA CITY
• G.R. No. 167838, August 05, 2015 - JOSE V. TOLEDO,
GLENN PADIERNOS AND DANILO PADIERNOS,
Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS, LOURDES RAMOS,
ENRIQUE RAMOS, ANTONIO RAMOS, MILAGROS
RAMOS AND ANGELITA RAMOS AS HEIRS OF
SOCORRO RAMOS, GUILLERMO PABLO, PRIMITIVA
CRUZ AND A.R.C. MARKETING CORPORATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, ALBERTO C. DY,
Respondents.
• A.C. No. 10635, August 26, 2015 - NOEL S. SORREDA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. DAVID L. KHO, Respondent.
• A.M. No. P-14-3253, August 19, 2015 - NICETAS
TANIEZA-CALAYOAN, Complainant, v. ELMER JERRY C.
CALAYOAN, PROCESS SERVER, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 2, BANGUED, ABRA, Respondent.
• A.C. No. 8084, August 24, 2015 - PATROCINIA H.
SALABAO, Complainant, v. ATTY. ANDRES C.
VILLARUEL, JR., Respondent.
• A.C. No. 9834, August 26, 2015 - SAMUEL B. ARNADO,
Complainant, v. ATTY. HOMOBONO A. ADAZA,
Respondent.
• A.C. No. 7314, August 25, 2015 - MARY ANN T.
FLORES, Complainant, v. ATTY. JOVENCIO LL. MAYOR,
JR., Respondent.
• A.M. No. CA-12-26-P, August 17, 2015 - OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANA
MARIE ABARENTOS, RECORDS OFFICER IV, COURT OF
APPEALS, CEBU CITY, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 206220, August 19, 2015 - LUIS UY,
SUBSTITUTED BY LYDIA UY VELASQUEZ AND SHIRLEY
UY MACARAIG, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES JOSE
LACSAMANA AND ROSAURA* MENDOZA,
SUBSTITUTED BY CORAZON BUENA, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 214865, August 19, 2015 - ROSVEE C.
CELESTIAL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 201822, August 12, 2015 - MARINA PORT
SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. AMERICAN HOME
ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 202967, August 05, 2015 - ALICIA Y. LAUREL,
SUBSTITUTED BY HER SOLE HEIR AND LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE JUAN MIGUEL Y. LAUREL,
Petitioner, v. FERDINAND M. VARDELEON,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 183869, August 03, 2015 - LEONARDO L.
VILLALON, Petitioner, v. RENATO E. LIRIO,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 179751, August 05, 2015 - HERMINIA L.
MENDOZA, IN HER CAPACITY AS OIC OF THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LUCENA CITY, Petitioner, v.
SPOUSES ARMANDO AND ANGELA GARANA AND FAR
EAST BANK & TRUST CO., INC., Respondents.
• G.R. No. 208320, August 19, 2015 - GRACE DAVID Y
CESAR, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 174542, August 03, 2015 - KAREN GO,
Petitioner, v. LAMBERTO ECHAVEZ, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 196875, August 19, 2015 - TEDDY
MARAVILLA, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH RIOS, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 205113, August 26, 2015 - HONORLITA
ASCANO-CUPINO AND FLAVIANA ASCANO-COLOCADO,
Petitioners, v. PACIFIC REHOUSE CORPORATION,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO
AND GARY YUMOL Y TUAZON,* Appellants.
• G.R. No. 198643, August 19, 2015 - MARSMAN &
COMPANY AND QUIRINO R. ILEDAN, Petitioners, v.
ARTEMIO M. LIGO, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 - NG MENG TAM,
Petitioner, v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION,
Respondent.
• A.M. No. P-11-2982 (Formerly O.C.A. IPI No. 08-2913-
P), August 17, 2015 - FORMER JUDGE FERNANDO VIL
PAMINTUAN, Complainant, v. SALVADOR G.
COMUYOG, JR., CLERK III, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 187882, August 24, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL BANK, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
HIPPOCRATES AND MELANIE PIMENTEL, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 190984, August 19, 2015 - ACOMARIT
ACOMARIT LIMITED, PHILS., AND/OR HONGKONG,
Petitioners, v. GOMER L. DOTIMAS, Respondent.
dispositive portion of the decision reads:6 redarclaw
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused Regie Breis y Alvarado and Gary
Yumol y Tuazon GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt and they are hereby sentenced to
suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and each to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00.
Both the accused are immediately ORDERED TO BE TRANSFERRED to the National
Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila.
SO ORDERED.7
The lone assignment of error in the Brief for the Accused-Appellants is as follows:
LawlibraryofCRAlaw
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF
THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.8
In their appeal, appellants argued that the PDEA agents did not comply with Section 21, paragraph 1,
Article II of RA 9165, and that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody over the seized
items.
The Court of Appeals' Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the requirements of Section 21,
Article II of RA 9165 were satisfied. Further, the Court of Appeals found no break in the custody of the
seized items that might compromise their evidentiary integrity. The appellate court also upheld the
legality of the warrantless search and arrest of appellants. The dispositive portion of the decision of the
Court of Appeals reads: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the appealed Decision dated February
14, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 61, in Criminal Case No.
30409-R, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.9
In the present appeal, appellants and appellee adopted their respective briefs10 filed before the Court of
Appeals as their supplemental briefs.11 redarclaw
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is without merit.
Procedure on Seizure and Custody of Drugs
Appellants argue that the procedure on seizure and custody of drugs, specified in Section 21, paragraph
1, Article II of RA 9165, was not complied with. In support of this contention, appellants state that: (1)
the PDEA agents did not immediately conduct the inventory at the place where the items were seized,
and did so only at the PDEA-CAR field office;12 and (2) the representatives from the media, barangay
and Department of Justice (DOJ) were present during the inventory conducted at the field office, but not
at the place of the seizure during actual confiscation.13 redarclaw
Appellants are mistaken. The PDEA agents who apprehended appellants did not deviate from the
procedure prescribed by law and regulations. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 provides the
procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and
the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA
9165, which reads: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory' and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that
the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office
of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items; x x x. (Boldfacing and underscoring
supplied)
Appellants insist that the PDEA agents should have conducted the inventory at the place where the drugs
were seized. However, the IRR clearly provides that in case of warrantless seizures, the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending team. The physical inventory and photograph were conducted at the PDEA-CAR field office,
a fact that appellants themselves acknowledge14 and testified to by IO1 Mangili15 and IO1 Peralta.16 redarclaw
The requirement of the presence of a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public
official during the physical inventory and photograph was also complied with. The representatives from
the media and the DOJ and an elected barangay official were present at the inventory conducted at the
PDEA-CAR field office, as evidenced by their signatures17 on the Inventory of Seized Item18 and
photographs taken during the inventory.19 In fact, this is not contested by appellants.20 redarclaw
Hence, we find no deviation from the procedure prescribed by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA
9165 and its IRR.
• G.R. No. 170706, August 26, 2015 - PRUDENCIO
CARANTO, Petitioner, v. BERGESEN D.Y. PHILS.
AND/OR BERGESEN D.Y. A.S.A., Respondents.
• G.R. No. 194617, August 05, 2015 - LA TONDEÑA,
INC., Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 206612, August 17, 2015 - TOYOTA
ALABANG, INC., Petitioner, v. EDWIN GAMES,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 203142, August 26, 2015 - THE PHILIPPINE
PORTS AUTHORITY (PPA), Petitioner, v. COALITION
OF PPA OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, REPRESENTED BY
HECTOR E. MIOLE, ET AL., Respondents.
• G.R. No. 182157, August 17, 2015 - ANLUD METAL
RECYCLING CORPORATION, AS REPRESENTED BY
ALFREDO A. DY, Petitioner, v. JOAQUIN ANG,
Respondent.
• A.C. No. 5161, August 25, 2015 - RE: IN THE MATTER
OF THE PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT OF ROLANDO
S. TORRES AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR.
• G.R. Nos. 191370-71, August 10, 2015 - RODOLFO
BASILONIA, LEODEGARIO CATALAN AND JOHN
BASILONIA, Petitioners, v. HON. DELANO F.
VLLLARUZ, ACTING IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ROXAS CITY,
BRANCH 16, AND DIXON ROBLETE, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 165146, August 12, 2015 - SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND VERNETTE G. UMALI,
Petitioners, v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB
CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R. N0. 165209 -
RAMON K. ILUSORIO AND ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO,
Petitioners, v. BAGUIO COUNTRY CLUB
CORPORATION, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 203066, August 05, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODELIO LLOBERA
Y OFIZA, Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 190892, August 17, 2015 - VICENTE H.
MANULAT, JR., Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 183370, August 17, 2015 - NATION
PETROLEUM GAS, INCORPORATED, NENA ANG, MARIO
ANG, ALISON A. SY, GUILLERMO G. SY, NELSON ANG,
LUISA ANG, RENATO C. ANG, PAULINE T. ANG, RICKY
C. ANG,1 AND MELINDA ANG, Petitioners, v. RIZAL
COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION, SUBSTITUTED
BY PHILIPPINE ASSET GROWTH ONE, INC.,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015 - JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
HON. AMPARO M. CABOTAJE-TANG, HON. SAMUEL R.
MARTIRES, AND HON. ALEX L. QUIROZ OF THE THIRD
DIVISION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 201405, August 24, 2015 - LIWAYWAY
ANDRES, RONNIE ANDRES, AND PABLO B.
FRANCISCO, Petitioners, v. STA. LUCIA REALTY &
DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 153810, August 12, 2015 - WINSTON R.
GARCIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), Petitioners, v. ANGELITA
TOLENTINO, EDELITO ZOLLO EDRALINDA, KATHLYN A.
UMALI, VIVIAN ROSIELLE CERVANTES, EDITH
MEDINA, ROMELO CABANGON, ET AL., Respondents.;
G.R. NO. 167297 - MELINA I. GARCIA, CECILIA V. LAS,
NIMFA PENALOSA, ROSANA R. ZEPEDA, RACHELLE L.
JACOB, MARIBEL B. TENA, AND EDUVIGIS S. ANGELES
(IN LIEU OF ANGELITA TOLENTINO FOR THE
NATIONAL FORESTATION DEVELOPMENT OFFICE-
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, ET AL.), Petitioners, v. WINSTON
GARCIA, ET AL., Respondents.
• G.R. No. 192943, August 12, 2015 - UNITED
DUMANGAS PORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, ATTY.
OSMAR M. SEVILLA, GENERAL MANAGER, ATTY.
FERNANDO B. CLAVERINA, PORT MANAGER, PORT
MANAGEMENT OFFICER-ILOILO; AND RAUL T.
SANTOS, PORT DISTRICT MANAGER, PORT DISTRICT
OFFICE-VISAYAS, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 200114, August 24, 2015 - SOCIAL SECURITY
SYSTEM, Petitioner, v. DEBBIE UBAÑA, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 177168, August 03, 2015 - NAVY OFFICERS'
VILLAGE ASSOCIATION, INC. (NOVAI), Petitioner, v.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 163598, August 12, 2015 - AGRARIAN
REFORM BENEFICIARIES ASSOCIATION (ARBA), AS
REPRESENTED BY ISAIAS "ACE" NICOLAS IN HIS
CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT, VIOLETA BATADHAY, JESUS
F. DANAO, DOMINADOR RIOSA, EVA I. FLORIDO,
VIRGINIA CARIAS, WILLIAM D. DORONELA, ELSA
MENGOLIO, FEDELINA AMENGYAO, REBECCA
REBAMBA, MELANI CADAG, SOFRONIA SABORDO,
MYRNA SANTIAGO, JOSELYNDA MANALANZAN, NORA
I. REBUZANO, NATIVIDAD PLACIDO, ALGERICO L.
GAEGUERA, RUBEN G. ACEBEDO, MARGIE M. VALDEZ,
Chain of Custody Established
What IO1 Mangili did in the bus upon seizure of the drugs was to mark the same, which is not to be
confused with taking the physical inventory. Marking is not a requirement of RA 9165 or its IRR, but has
been held to be an initial stage in the chain of custody: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Nonetheless, the Court has acknowledged the practical value of the process of marking the
confiscated contraband and considered it as an initial stage in the chain of custody - a
process preliminary and preparatory to the physical inventory and photograph
requirements in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious
and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers
from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 [of
Republic act No. 9165] and on allegations of robbery or theft.
"Marking" is the placing by the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with
his/her initials and signature on the items seized. It helps ensure that the dangerous drugs
seized upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs subjected to inventory and
photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station or at some other
practicable venue rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of
custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they
are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence —
should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation.
"Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. Indeed, marking upon immediate
confiscation has been interpreted as to even include marking at the nearest police station
or office of the apprehending team. In this case, the dangerous drugs taken from accused-
appellants were marked in his presence immediately upon confiscation at the very venue
of his arrest.21 (Citations omitted)
Chain of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court
for destruction.22 What assumes primary importance in drug cases is the prosecution's proof, to the point
of moral certainty, that the prohibited drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the
same item recovered from his possession.23 redarclaw
Appellants argue that the prosecution was not able to establish the chain of custody over the seized
drugs:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
The irregularities in the handling procedure of the seized items are manifold. There is no
indication what steps were taken after the seizure, whether the items were turned over to
the investigator or to the desk officer before SPO4 Abordo allegedly delivered it to the
crime laboratory.
How can the trial court rule that the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved when in
fact, the prosecution failed to identify who was in possession of the marijuana from the
place of the seizure; to whom the same was turned over; and how it came to the custody
of SPO4 Abordo who allegedly delivered the seized items at (sic) the laboratory. Nor was
there any prosecution's evidence showing the identity of the person who had the custody
and safekeeping of the drug after its examination and pending presentation in court.24
Appellants' argument fails to impress.
The links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect to the chain of custody are the
following: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by
the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to
the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug
seized from the forensic chemist to the court.25 redarclaw
In this case, the prosecution adequately established the unbroken chain of custody over the marijuana
seized from appellants.
The records show that the seized drugs were marked immediately upon confiscation by IO1 Mangili with
his initials and signature, the date, and the letters A, B, C or D to distinguish the bricks, in the presence
of appellants.26 redarclaw
The seized drugs were brought, together with appellants, to the PDEA-CAR field office. IO1 Mangili acted
in both capacities of apprehending officer and investigating officer. IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta testified
that they conducted the investigation and the inventory.27 redarclaw
IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta also testified that it was their evidence custodian, Senior Police Officer 4
Abordo (SP04 Abordo), who brought the seized drugs to the Crime Laboratory for examination.28 A
thorough review of the records reveals that the Request for Laboratory Exam29 shows that the seized
drugs were delivered on 10 February 2010 by SP04 Abordo and received by Police Officer 2 Florendo and
Police Senior Inspector Rowena Fajardo Canlas (PSI Canlas). PSI Canlas was the forensic chemist who
conducted the examination on the seized drugs and signed Chemistry Report No. D-08-201030
(chemistry report).
The chemistry report indicates that the "specimen submitted are retained in this laboratory for future
reference."31 Through subpoena32 upon PSI Canlas, the marijuana was brought to court and marked
during the preliminary conference held on 7 April 2010.33 redarclaw
Appellants contend that the prosecution's failure to discuss in detail each link in the chain of custody
negated the integrity of the evidence. This is misplaced: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
x x x It must be remembered that testimony about a perfect chain is not always
the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. As
such, what is of importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items. The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved,
unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been
tampered.34 (Emphasis supplied)
 HELEN S. BUNI, EMELINDA FERNANDEZ, JULIETA J.
AVENGONZA, VIOLETA C. ASIS, CARINA C. CABRERA,
EDUARDO M. DILAY, SIMEONA V. ROLEDA, EVELYN
SANTO ELEUTERIA A. NOLASCO, TERESA CRUZ, MELBA
ABRENICA, BESAME VILLACORTA, ROSALINA
HERNANDEZ, VERONICA DOMULOT, LUCIA SOUN,
ILUMENADA RONQUILLO, REGINA LOPEZ, AMPARO
GREY, HIPOLITO MANDAO, JUAN DELA VEGA,
PRESCILIANA LLEMIT, LEBERETA IGNACIO,
FRANCISCO VALDEMOR, Petitioners, v. FIL-ESTATE
INC., PROPERTIES, Respondent.; G.R. NO. 164660 -
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB), AGRARIAN REFORM
BENEFICIARIES, INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v.
KINGSVILLE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
CORP. AND JOHNSON ONG, Respondents.; G.R. NO.
164779 - AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES
ASSOCIATION (ARBA), VIOLETA BATADHAY,
NATIVIDAD PLACIDO, JESUS F. DANAO, EVA I.
FLORIDO, VIRGINIA CARIAS, WILLIAM D. DORONELA,
ELSA MENGOLIO, ROBERTO ISIP, REBECCA REBAMBA,
SOFRONIA SABORDO, MYRNA SANTIAGO, JOSELYNDA
MANALANZAN, NORA I. REBUZANO, ALGERICO L.
GALQUERA, RUBEN G. ACEBEDO, MARGIE M. VALDEZ,
HELEN S. BUNI, JULIETA J. AVENGONZA, VIOLETA C.
ASIS, CARINA C. CABRERA, EDUARDO M. DILAY,
ELEUTERIA A. NOLASCO, TERESA CRUZ, MELBA
ABRENICA, VERONICA DOMULOT, LUCIA SUN,
ILUMENADA RONQUILLO AND PRESCILIANA LLEMIT,
Petitioners, v. KINGSVILLE CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND JOHNSONONG,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 164974, August 05, 2015 - CHARLIE TE,
Petitioner, v. HON. AUGUSTO V. BREVA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 11TH JUDICIAL REGION,
BRANCH 10, DAVAO CITY; U R. BAHINTING, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR OF THE
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
SARANGGANI DISTRICT OFFICE; AND PRYCE GASES,
INC., Respondents.
• G.R. No. 211302, August 12, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
TRANSMARINE CARRIERS, INC., CARLOS C. SALINAS,
AND NORWEGIAN CREW MANAGEMENT A/S,
Petitioners, v. CESAR C. PELAGIO, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015 - ROMMEL C.
ARNADO, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
AND FLORANTE CAPITAN, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 211649, August 12, 2015 - AQA GLOBAL
CONSTRUCTION, INC., Petitioner, v. PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.; G.R. No. 211742 -
JE-AN SUPREME BUILDERS AND SALES
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. PLANTERS
DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 203355, August 18, 2015 - LEO R. ROSALES,
EDGAR SOLIS JONATHAN G. RANIOLA, LITO
FELICIANO, RAYMUNDO DIDAL, JR., NESTOR SALIN,
ARNULFO S. ABRIL, RUBEN FLORES, DANTE FERMA
AND MELCHOR SELGA, Petitioners, v. NEW A.N.J.H.
ENTERPRISES & N.H. OIL MILL CORPORATION, NOEL
AWAYAN, MA. FE AWAYAN, BYRON ILAGAN, HEIDI A.
ILAGAN AND AVELINO AWAYAN, Respondents.
• A.M. No. RTJ-14-2383 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I No.
05-2301-RTJ), August 17, 2015 - DR. CORAZON D.
PADERANGA, DULCE P. GUIBELONDO, PATRIA P.
DIAZ, CARMENCITA P. ORSENO, AND DR. AMOR P.
GALON, Complainants, v. HONORABLE RUSTICO D.
PADERANGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING
JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28,
IN MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, Respondent.; A.M. No.
RTJ-07-2033 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 06-2485-
RTJ) - PATRIA PADERANGA DIAZ, Complainant, v.
HON. RTC JUDGE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA, AS THE
PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 28, IN MAMBAJAO, CAMIGUIN, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 160924, August 05, 2015 - TERELAY
INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Petitioner, v. CECILIA TERESITA J. YULO, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 213286, August 26, 2015 - MAMERTA LOPEZ
CLAUDIO, EDUARDO L. CLAUDIO, ASUNCION
CLAUDIO-CONTEGINO, ANA CLAUDIO-ISULAT,
DOLORES CLAUDIO-MABINI, AND FERMIN L.
CLAUDIO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES FEDERICO AND
NORMA SARAZA, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 200295, August 19, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDGAR BOLO Y
FRANCO, Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 209331, August 24, 2015 - DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA
IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, AND THE
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY HON.
ROZZANO RUFINO B. BIAZON, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,
Petitioners, v. HON. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ, JR., IN
HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, MANILA, HON. FELICITAS O. LARON-
CACANINDIN, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH
17, RONNIE C. SILVESTRE, EDWARD P. DELA CUESTA,
ROGEL C. GATCHALIAN, IMELDA D.CRUZ, LILIBETH S.
SANDAG, RAYMOND P. VENTURA, MA. LIZA S. TORRES,
ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, MA. LOURDES V. MANGAOANG,
FRANCIS AGUSTIN Y. ERPE, CARLOS T. SO, MARIETTA
In People v. Mali,35 we held:
LawlibraryofCRAlaw
The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. To
sustain conviction, its identity must be established in that the substance bought during the
buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the
identity of the evidence are removed.36
In this case, the prosecution was able to show that the same drugs seized and marked by IO1 Mangili
were the same ones he identified at the trial.37 Further, the records consistently show that the markings
on the bricks of marijuana consisted of the initials and signature of IO1 Mangili, the date and A, B, C, or
D, as evidenced by the photograph38 taken during the inventory and the chemistry report describing the
submitted specimen as follows: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
A-One (1) carton knot tied with gray plastic straw labeled GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL with
markings '02-10-2010 ELM and signature', containing four (4) bricks of dried suspected
marijuana fruiting tops each wrapped with plastic and further wrapped with brown
packaging tape with the following markings and recorded net weights: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
A-1 - [02-10-2010-A ELM and signature] = 2000.1 grams
A-2 = [02-10-2010-B ELM and signature] = 2158.3 grams
A-3 = [02-10-2010-C ELM and signature] = 2051.1 grams
A-4 = [02-10-2010-D ELM and signature] = 1971.5 grams39
(Emphasis supplied)
The presumption is that the PDEA agents performed their duties regularly. There being no evidence
showing bad faith, ill will or proof that the evidence has been tampered, we find that the prosecution
sufficiently established the chain of custody. Consequently, the corpus delicti was also established.
Warrantless Search and Seizure and Arrest
Although it was not raised as an error, it is imperative that we rule on the validity of the warrantless
search and seizure and the subsequent warrantless arrest of appellants.
It is well settled that no arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a
competent judicial authority. No less than the Constitution guarantees this right -
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.40
Further, any evidence obtained in violation of this provision is inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.41 However, the rule against warrantless searches and seizures admits of exceptions, such as
the search of moving vehicles. In People v. Libnao,42 the Court held:
LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the
impracticability of securing a warrant under said circumstances as the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Peace
officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where the examination of the
vehicle is limited to visual inspection. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an
extensive search, such would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it
upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to
the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains a[n] item, article or object
which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.43
Although the term eludes exact definition, probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's belief that the
person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged; or the existence of such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject
to seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be searched.44 The determination of probable cause
must be resolved according to the facts of each case.45 redarclaw
The Court has ruled in several dangerous drug cases46 that tipped information is sufficient probable
cause to effect a warrantless search. In People v. Mariacos,47 the police received at dawn information
that a baggage of marijuna was loaded on a passenger jeepney about to leave for the poblacion. There,
the informant described the bag containing the prohibited drugs. The Court held that the police had
probable cause to search the packages allegedly containing illegal drugs.48 redarclaw
In the present case, the vehicle that carried the prohibited drugs was about to leave. The PDEA agents
made a judgment call to act fast, as time was of the essence. The team arrived at the terminal around 15
minutes49 before the bus was scheduled to depart. Upon boarding the bus, IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta
identified two men fitting the description given by the informant in possession of a box described50 by
the informant to contain marijuana.
Moreover, the PDEA agents had reasonable suspicion based on appellants' behavior that the latter were
probably committing a crime. IO1 Mangili casually asked appellant Yumol who owned the box at their
(appellants') feet. After answering that it belonged to them (appellants), Yumol suddenly stood up and
tried to leave. IO1 Peralta prevented him from getting off the bus. Then IO1 Mangili asked appellant Breis
what was contained in the box. Instead of answering, Breis shoved IO1 Mangili and tried to flee. It must
be noted that IO1 Mangili identified himself as a PDEA agent before either appellant tried to leave the
bus:
LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Q And you wanted to confirm your suspicion by asking from Gary Yumol who owns
the box?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Gary Yumol, of course, did not give you any answer?
A He said that it is theirs.
Q Did you also talk to the companion of Gary Yumol?
 D. ZAMORANOS, CARMELITA M. TALUSAN,1] AREFILES
H. CARREON,2] AND ROMALINO G. VALDEZ,
Respondents.
• A.C. No. 6738, August 12, 2015 - GABRIELA CORONEL,
Petitioner, v. ATTY. NELSON A. CUNANAN,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 170671, August 19, 2015 - FILADELFA T.
LAUSA, LORETA T. TORRES, PRIMITIVO TUGOT AND
ANACLETO T. CADUHAY, Petitioners, v. MAURICIA
QUILATON, RODRIGO Q. TUGOT, PURIFICACION T.
CODILLA, TEOFRA T. SADAYA, ESTRELLITA T. GALEOS
AND ROSITA T. LOPEZ, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 202322, August 19, 2015 - LIGHT RAIL
TRANSIT AUTHORITY, Petitioner, v. ROMULO S.
MENDOZA, FRANCISCO S. MERCADO, ROBERTO M.
REYES, EDGARDO CRISTOBAL, JR., AND RODOLFO
ROMAN, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 198751, August 19, 2015 - FLOR CAÑAS-
MANUEL, Petitioner, v. ANDRES D. EGANO,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015 - JACKSON
PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN
AND ROLANDO MESINA Y JAVATE, Petitioners, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 202645, August 05, 2015 - FORTUNATO R.
BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A.
MELENDRES, Petitioners, v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC.
AND/OR ERNESTO P. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 - OKS DESIGNTECH,
INC. REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O. PONGAD, Petitioner,
v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 175098, August 26, 2015 - ISMAEL V.
CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN P. VICTORIA,
Respondent.
• A.M. No. CA-15-33-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-207-
CA-P], August 24, 2015 - TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN,
CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA,
Complainant, v. RONELO G. LABAR, DRIVER, MAILING
AND DELIVERY SECTION, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU
STATION, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015 - HILARIO P.
SORIANO, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR
LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES,
GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER
II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C.
CLEOFE, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 200841-42, August 26, 2015 - CE LUZON
GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015 - ALBERTO T.
LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE
STYLE PSF SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015 - SAN MIGUEL
PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. BF HOMES, INC.,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 166102, August 05, 2015 - MANILA ELECTRIC
COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE CITY ASSESSOR AND
CITY TREASURER OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.
• A.M. No. 99-7-01-SC, August 18, 2015 - RE: REQUEST
OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF
APPEALS JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF
THEIR DECEMBER 1998 PENSIONS
• A.M. No. RTJ-15-2439 (Formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 12-
3989-RTJ), August 26, 2015 - ARIEL "AGA" MUHLACH,
Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA
ACOMPAÑADO-ARROYO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
SAN JOSE CITY, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015 - TEOFILO
GIANGAN, SANTOS BONTIA (DECEASED), AND
LIBERATO DUMAIL (DECEASED), Petitioners, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, v.
LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MANUEL C.
BLANCO, JR., Respondent.
• G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015 - NILO V.
CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA BENITEZ-
LIRIO, FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT
OF APPEALS, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 206032, August 19, 2015 - JOSE RUDY L.
BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT
PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA SHIPMANAGEMENT
ITALY, AND/OR CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO,
Respondents.
A After Gary stood up suddenly I also spoke to Regie Breis.
Q And did he also give you any answer?
A He just pushed me and tried to leave the bus.
xxxx
Q Before you talked to Gary Yumol did you identify yourself as PDEA
agents?
A When I asked him who owns the box, I then identified myself.
Q Did you ask them if you can see the contents of the box?
A I told Regie to open the box but he did not want that's why I was the one who
opened it.
Q Gary Yumol according to you stood up?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when he stood up, he was held by Agent Peralta?
A Yes, sir.
Q And Regie Breis also stood up after you talked to him?
A Yes, sir.
Q But he was also held by Agent Peralta?
A I was the one who told him to sit down.
Q Before you told him to sit down did you introduce yourself as a PDEA
agent?
A Yes, sir.51 (Emphasis supplied)
Appellants' act of standing up to leave the bus under different circumstances may be natural; but it is not
so in this case. In People v. Aminnudin,52 the warrantless arrest of Aminnudin based on an informant's
tip that he was carrying marijuana was declared unconstitutional because there was no outward
indication that called for his arrest. There, the Court found that "[t]o all appearances, he was like any of
the other passengers innocently disembarking from the vessel."53 redarclaw
In contrast to the instant case, appellants were attempting to get out of a bus that was about to leave
the terminal, and not one that had just arrived, where the other passengers were, as can be expected,
seated in preparation for departure. It is unnatural for passengers to abruptly disembark from a
departing bus, leaving their belongings behind. Any reasonable observer would be put on suspicion that
such persons are probably up to no good. To a trained law enforcement agent, it signaled the probability
that appellants were committing an offense and that the objects left behind might be contraband or even
dangerous articles.
Indeed, as observed by the PDEA agents, appellants were not simply passengers carrying a box in a bus.
They engaged in suspicious behavior when they tried to flee after IO1 Mangili showed interest in their
box and identified himself as a PDEA agent. Worse, in his attempt at flight, Breis pushed IO1 Mangili,
already knowing that the latter was a PDEA agent. This brazen act on the part of Breis only cemented the
belief that appellants were likely hiding a wrongdoing and avoiding capture by law enforcers.
The act of Breis in physically pushing IO1 Mangili and attempting to flee constitutes resistance defined
under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Cjode (RPC).54 Before a person can be held guilty of the crime of
resistance or disobedience to a person in authority, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused knew that the person he disobeyed or resisted is a person in authority or the agent of such
person who is actually engaged in the performance of his official duties.55
redarclaw
As a PDEA agent, IO1 Mangili is a law enforcement agent and as such is an agent of a person in authority
as defined in the RPC.56 IO1 Mangili was in the act of investigating a lead, and possibly apprehending
violators of RA 9165, in accordance with the mandate of the PDEA.57 He announced his identity as such
agent to appellants. It may even be gleaned that knowing that IO1 Mangili was a PDEA agent was
precisely the cause of the attempted flight of appellants.
The laying of hands or using physical force against agents of persons in authority when not serious in
nature constitutes resistance or disobedience under Article 151, and not direct assault under Article 148
of the RPC.58 This is because the gravity of the disobedience to an order of a person in authority or his
agent is measured by the circumstances surrounding the act, the motives prompting it and the real
importance of the transgression, rather than the source of the order disobeyed.59 The pushing of IO1
Mangili is not of such serious defiance to be considered direct assault, but is resistance nonetheless.
The Court has held justified resistance to illegal or abusive acts of agents of persons in authority. In Chan
Fook,60 the Court quoted Groizard: LawlibraryofCRAlaw
A person in authority, his agent or a public officer who exceeds his power can not be said
to be in the exercise of the functions of his office. The law that defines and establishes his
powers does not protect him for anything that has not been provided for.
The scope of the respective powers of public officers and their agents is fixed. If they go
beyond it and they violate any recognized rights of the citizens, then the latter may resist
the invasion, specially when it is clear and manifest. The resistance must be coextensive
with the excess, and should not be greater than what is necessary to repel the aggression.
The invasion of the prerogatives or rights of another and the excess in the functions of an
office, are the sources that make for legitimate resistance, especially, in so far as it is
necessary for the defense of the persons or their rights in the manner provided for in
article 8 of the Penal Code.61
Unlike the officer in Chan Fook, IO1 Mangili did not exceed his authority in the performance of his duty.
Prior to Breis' resistance, IO1 Mangili laid nary a finger on Breis or Yumol. Neither did his presence in the
bus constitute an excess of authority. The bus is public transportation, and is open to the public. The
expectation of privacy in relation to the constitutional right against unreasonable searches in a public bus
is not the same as that in a person's dwelling. In fact, at that point in time, only the bus was being
searched, not Yumol, Breis, or their belongings, and the search of moving vehicles has been upheld.
Moreover, appellants are not in any position to claim protection of the right against unreasonable
searches as to the warrantless search of the bus. The pronouncement of the United States Supreme
Court (USSC) in Rakas v. Illinois62 regarding the Fourth Amendment rights63 is instructive:
LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights, which, like some other constitutional rights,
may not be vicariously asserted. A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and
seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third
person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed.
And since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth
Amendment, it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have
been violated to benefit from the rule's protections.64 (Citations omitted)
• G.R. No. 208354, August 26, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BACUS,
Accused-Appellant.
• G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 - RICARDO V.
QUINTOS, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,
Respondents.
• G.R. No. 181111, August 17, 2015 - JACKSON
PADIERNOS Y QUEJADA, JACKIE ROXAS Y GERMAN
AND ROLANDO MESINA Y JAVATE, Petitioners, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
• G.R. No. 202645, August 05, 2015 - FORTUNATO R.
BARON, MANOLO B. BERSABAL, AND RECTO A.
MELENDRES, Petitioners, v. EPE TRANSPORT, INC.
AND/OR ERNESTO P. ENRIQUEZ, Respondents.
It being established that IO1 Mangili was not in violation of Yumol's or Breis' rights as he was searching
the bus, there is no excess of authority, clear and manifest or otherwise, for either Yumol or Breis to
lawfully resist. Hence, the act of Breis in pushing IO1 Mangili was an unlawful resistance to an agent of a
person in authority, contrary to Article 151 of the RPC.
Breis' commission of a crime in view of, and against IO1 Mangili, and proclivity for resorting to acts of
violence further justify the warrantless search of appellants.
A further point. Appellants each attempted to alight from a departing bus, leaving behind their
belongings. They may be deemed to have abandoned the box in their flight. A thing is considered
abandoned and possession thereof lost if the spes recuperandi (the hope of recovery) is gone and the
animus revertendi (the intention of returning) is finally given up.65 That appellants got up to leave a
departing bus without bringing their box points to the absence of both spes recuperandi and animus
revertendi. Indeed, although their flight was thwarted by the PDEA agents, both appellants intended to
leave the box behind without returning for it. Abandonment has the effect of converting a thing into res
nullius.66 redarclaw

• G.R. No. 175098, August 26, 2015 - ISMAEL V.

CRISOSTOMO, Petitioner, v. MARTIN P. VICTORIA,
Respondent.
• G.R. No. 211263, August 05, 2015 - OKS DESIGNTECH,
INC. REPRESENTED BY ZAMBY O. PONGAD, Petitioner,
v. MARY JAYNE L. CACCAM, Respondent.
• A.M. No. CA-15-33-P [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-207-
CA-P], August 24, 2015 - TERESITA R. MARIGOMEN,
CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA,
Complainant, v. RONELO G. LABAR, DRIVER, MAILING
AND DELIVERY SECTION, COURT OF APPEALS, CEBU
In the United States, abandoned articles, such as those thrown away, are considered bona vacantia, and
may be lawfully searched and seized by law enforcement authorities.67 Put to question in Abel v. United
States68 was the admissibility of incriminating articles, which had been thrown away, that the Federal
Bureau of Investigation recovered without warrant. The USSC held that the articles were abandoned and
that there was nothing unlawful in the government's appropriation of such abandoned property.69 In
Hester v. United States,70 defendants and his associates ran away from officers, and in the process
discarded a jar and a jug. The USSC held no Fourth Amendment violation occurred when officers
examined the contents of the discarded items without warrant.71 In California v. Hodari,12 police officers,
without warrant, pursued defendant who threw a rock of cocaine into an alley as he was running. The
USSC upheld the admissibility of the abandoned cocaine.73 redarclaw

STATION, Respondent.
Applied analogously, there is no objectionable warrantless search and seizure of the box of marijuana
• G.R. No. 168157, August 19, 2015 - HILARIO P. abandoned in the bus by appellants.
SORIANO, Petitioner, v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR
LUZON VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ, FLORIZA A. BRIONES,
Given the above discussion, it is readily apparent that the search in this case is valid.
GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICER
II, DONNA B. PASCUAL, GRAFT INVESTIGATION AND
PROSECUTION OFFICER II, AND ATTY. ADONIS C. Having been found with prohibited drugs in their possession, appellants were clearly committing a
CLEOFE, Respondents. criminal offense in the presence of IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta. The subsequent warrantless arrest falls
under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

• G.R. No. 200841-42, August 26, 2015 - CE LUZON

GEOTHERMAL POWER COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

• G.R. No. 171582, August 19, 2015 - ALBERTO T.

LASALA, PREVIOUSLY DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
STYLE PSF SECURITY AGENCY, Petitioner, v. THE
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY, Respondent.

• G.R. No. 169343, August 05, 2015 - SAN MIGUEL xxxx

PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioner, v. BF HOMES, INC.,
Respondent.
Hence, the warrantless arrest of appellants is lawful.
• G.R. No. 166102, August 05, 2015 - MANILA ELECTRIC
COMPANY, Petitioner, v. THE CITY ASSESSOR AND Defenses of Denial and Frame-Up
CITY TREASURER OF LUCENA CITY, Respondents.
Appellants' defenses of denial and frame-up were disbelieved by both the trial court and the Court of
• A.M. No. RTJ-15-2439 (Formerly: OCA I.P.I. No. 12- Appeals. It is a settled rule that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a
3989-RTJ), August 26, 2015 - ARIEL "AGA" MUHLACH, matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses
Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. ANGELA
ACOMPAÑADO-ARROYO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.74 We find no
SAN JOSE CITY, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent. reason to deviate from this rule.

• A.M. No. 99-7-01-SC, August 18, 2015 - RE: REQUEST
OF RETIRED SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF
APPEALS JUSTICES FOR INCREASE/ADJUSTMENT OF
THEIR DECEMBER 1998 PENSIONS
• G.R. No. 169385, August 26, 2015 - TEOFILO
GIANGAN, SANTOS BONTIA (DECEASED), AND
LIBERATO DUMAIL (DECEASED), Petitioners, v.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
The defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the positive and categorical assertions of the
PDEA agents who were strangers to appellants and against whom no ill-motive was established.75
Further, such defenses failed to overcome the documentary and physical evidence presented by the
prosecution.
In light of the foregoing, appellants' conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is in order.
Penalty for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs

• G.R. No. 205722, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE The penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is provided in Section of RA 9165: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL

COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, v.
LEGAL HEIRS OF JOSE L. AFRICA, Respondents.
• G.R. No. 169710, August 19, 2015 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JOSE ALBERTO ALBA,
REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MANUEL C.
BLANCO, JR., Respondent.
SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - 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
possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity
thereof:
LawlibraryofCRAlaw

• G.R. No. 162692, August 26, 2015 - NILO V. xxxx

CHIPONGIAN, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA BENITEZ-
LIRIO, FEODOR BENITEZ AGUILAR, AND THE COURT 7) 500 grams or more of marijuana;
OF APPEALS, Respondents.
xxxx
• G.R. No. 206032, August 19, 2015 - JOSE RUDY L.
BAUTISTA, Petitioner, v. ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT
PHILIPPINES, INC., AUGUSTEA SHIPMANAGEMENT The penalty imposed upon appellants is in order.
ITALY, AND/OR CAPTAIN ANTONIO S. NOMBRADO,*
Respondents. WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 26 June 2012 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04916, affirming the Decision dated 14 February 2011 of the Regional Trial Court,
• G.R. No. 208354, August 26, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICARDO BACUS,
Branch 61, Baguio City in Criminal Case No. 30409-R, is AFFIRMED.
Accused-Appellant.
SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary

• G.R. No. 200751, August 17, 2015 - MONICO LIGTAS,

Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Respondent.
Endnotes:
• G.R. No. 168258, August 17, 2015 - RICARDO V.
QUINTOS, Petitioner, v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES AND PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, * Also referred to in the Records as Gary Yumul y Tuazon.
Respondents.
1Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate
• G.R. No. 215568, August 03, 2015 - RICHARD N.
RIVERA, Petitioner, v. GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE, Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
INC. AND RIZA A. MOISES, Respondents.
2 Records, pp. 179-185. Penned by Judge Antonio C. Reyes.
• G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015 - PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner, 3Rollo, p. 3.
v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT BANKERS (M) BERHAD,
Respondent. 4 Records, pp. 179-180.
• G.R. No. 210554, August 05, 2015 - DAVID YU
KIMTENG, MARY L. YU, WINNIE L. YU, VIVIAN L. YU, 5 Id. at 180-181,
ROSA GAN, LILIAN CHUA WOO YUKIMTENG, SANTOS
YU, MARCELO YU, AND SIN CHIAO YU LIM, 6 CA rollo, p.19.
Petitioners, v. ATTY. WALTER T. YOUNG, ANASTACIO
E. REVILLA, JR., ATTY. JOVITO GAMBOL, AND ATTY.
7 Records, ] 185.
DAN REYNALD R. MAGAT, PRACTICING LAW UNDER
THE FIRM NAME, YOUNG REVILLA GAMBOL & MAGAT,
AND JUDGE OFELIA L. CALO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF 8 CA rollo, P- 34.
BRANCH 211 OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
MANDALUYONG CITY, Respondents. 9 Id. at 101.
• G.R. No. 171804, August 05, 2015 - THE REGISTER OF
10 Id. at 32-45, 59-84.
DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL AND THE NATIONAL
TREASURER OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioners, v. OSCAR ANGLO, SR., AND ANGLO 11 Rollo, pp. 39-40.
AGRICULTURAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY
OSCAR ANGLO, JR., Respondents. 12 CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
• G.R. No. 205705, August 05, 2015 - DOMINADOR M.
13 Id. at 40-41.
APIQUE, Petitioner, v. EVANGELINE APIQUE
FAHNENSTICH, Respondent.
14Brief for the Accused-Appellants, id. at 39-40.
• G.R. No. 195990, August 05, 2015 - HEIRS OF RAFAEL
GOZO REPRESENTED BY CASTILLO GOZO AND RAFAEL 15
GOZO, JR., Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE UNION
TSN, 12 May 2010, pp. 26, 30-31; TSN, 7 July 2010, p. 25.
MISSION CORPORATION OF THE SEVENTH DAY
ADVENTIST CHURCH (PUMCO), SOUTH PHILIPPINE 16 TSN, 25 August 2010, pp. 38-40, 43-44; TSN, 8 November 2010, p. 13.
UNION MISSION OF SDA (SPUMCO) AND SEVENTH
DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH AT SIMPAK, LALA, LANAO 17 Exhibits "C-l," "C-2," and "C-3," Records p. 10.
DEL NORTE REPRESENTED BY BETTY PEREZ ,
Respondents. 18 Exhibit "C," id.
• G.R. No. 163504, August 05, 2015 - BERLINDA
ORIBELLO, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS 19 Exhibits "I," "I-1," "I-2," "I-3," and "I-4," id. at 51-55.
(SPECIAL FORMER TENTH DIVISION), AND REMEDIOS
ORIBELLO, Respondents. 20 Brief for the Accused-Appellants, CA rollo, pp. 40-41.

21People v. Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 13 July 2013, 701 SCRA 525, 545-546.

22People v, Cervantes, 600 Phil. 819 (2009).

23People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September 2012, 680 SCRA 680, 690-691,
citing People v. Bautista, 665 Phil. 815, 833 (2011).

24 CA rollo, p. 43.

25People v. Arriola, 681 Phil. 578, 594 (2012).

26 TSN, 12 May 2010, pp. 17-18.

27 TSN, 7 July 2010, pp. 25-26; TSN, 25 August 2010, pp. 37-42.

28 TSN, 7 July 2010, pp. 26-27; TSN, 25 August 2010, pp. 40-42.

29 Exhibit "F," Records, p. 14.

30 Exhibit "G," id. at 34.

31 Id.

32 Id. at 29.

33 Minutes of Preliminary Conference, id. at 31.

34 Supra note 25, at 597.

35 G.R. No. 206738, 11 December 2013, 712 SCRA 776.

36 Id. at 795.

37 TSN, 12 May 2010, pp. 31-32.

38 Exhibit "I" marked on 12 May 2010. Records, p. 51.

38 Id. at 34.

40 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2. 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 3(2).

42 G.R. No. 136860, 20 January 2003. 395 SCRA 407.

43 Id. at 414.

44People v. Valdez, 363 Phil. 481,489 (1999).

45People v. Ayangao, 471 Phil. 379, 388 (2004).

46People v. Ayangao, id.; People v. Libnao, supra; People v. Valdez, supra; People v.
Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315(2010).

47 635 Phil. 315(2010).

48 Id. at 331.

49 TSN, 7 July 2010, p. 17.

50 In contrast to Mariacos, the confidential informant in the present case not only
described the box, but also the appearances and clothing of appellants, thus: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

Q The description given was the height and the built (sic) only, correct?
A And also the clothes they are wearing and the description of the box. (TSN, 7 July 2010,
p. 13)

51 TSN, 7 July 2010, pp. 21-23.

52 246 Phil. 424 (1988).

53 Id. at 434.

54 Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such
person. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of the preceding
articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such
person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.

When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to 100 pesos shall be imposed upon the
offender.

55Vytiaco v. Court of Appeals, 126 Phil. 48, 59 (1967).

56United States v. Taylor, 6 Phil. 162 (1906).

57 Republic Act No. 9165, provides in part: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

Sec. 82. Creation of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). - To carry out the
provisions of this Act, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which serves as the
implementing arm of the Board, and shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law
enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical as provided in this Act. xxx x

Sec. 84. Powers and Duties of the PDEA. - The PDEA shall: x x x x

b) Undertake the enforcement of the provisions of Article II of this Act relative to the
unlawful acts and penalties involving any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical and investigate all violators and other matters involved in the
commission of any crime relative to the use, abuse or trafficking of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical x x x;

xxxx

d) Arrest and apprehend as well as search all violators and seize or confiscate, the effects
or proceeds of the crimes as provided by law and take custody thereof, for this purpose the
prosecutors and enforcement agents are authorized to possess firearms, in accordance
with existing laws;

xxxx

58United States v. Taylor, supra.

59People v. Chan Fook, 42 Phil. 230 (1921).

60 Id.

61 Id. at 233-234; citing 3 Groizard, p. 456, et seq.

62 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).

63 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, similar to Section 2 of our Bill
of Rights, states: LawlibraryofCRAlaw

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

64 Id.

65Domalsin v. Sps. Valenciano, 515 Phil. 745, 764 (2006).

66Yu v. DeLara, 116 Phil. 1105(1962).

67 Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960).

68 Id.

69 Id.

70 265 U.S. 57 (1924).

71 Id.

72 499 U.S. 621 (1991).

73 Id.

74People v. Sapigao, Jr., 614 Phil. 589, 599 (2009).

75People v. De Jesus, supra note 23, at 688-689.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Main Indices of the Library --->  Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED