Chuaquico Jett I.
After three (3) days he was
People vs. Andaya- Non presentation of confidential informant who is also
the poseur buyer is fatal to the conviction of guilt
FACTS: Respondent was charged with the violation of Sec. 5 RA 9165 or
the selling of illegal drugs.
Prosecutions version: SPO2 Delfin Alea testified that at about 8:00 o'clock
in the evening of December 16, 2002, their asset who was conducting
surveillance of Pablito Andaya in Barangay San Jose Sico, Batangas City,
arrived at their station. Said asset reported that he had arranged to buy shabu
from Pablito. A team composed of SPO1 Aguila, SPO1 Cabungcal, Eric de
Chavez, PO1 Lindberg Yap, Edwalberto Villar and asset Bagsit was
constituted to conduct a buy-bust. Two (2) pieces of P100.00 bills both duly
marked "X" were recorded in the police blotter.
Upon reaching the designated place, the team members alighted from their
vehicles and occupied different positions where they could see and observe
the asset. The asset knocked on the door of Pablito's house. Pablito came out.
Pablito and the asset talked briefly. The asset gave Pablito the marked money.
The asset received something from appellant. The pre-arranged signal
signifying consummation of the transaction was given. The team members
approached Pablito and the asset, introduced themselves as police officers
and arrested accused. He was brought to the police station. The arrival of the
team was recorded in the police blotter. The specimen was positive for
methampethamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.
Defenses version: Accused-appellant denied the charge. He stated that at
about 9: 15 in the evening of December 16, 2002 he was at home watching
TV with his family when police officers arrived. When he opened the door,
a police officer poked his gun at him. Somebody else held a long firearm.
Pablito was handcuffed and brought outside. He refused to negotiate and
asked for a warrant. The policemen searched the house, turned over the
beddings and uncovered their furniture. No gun nor shabu was found. Pablito
was brought to the police station and detained.
released. He received a subpoena from the Public Prosecutor afterwards.
RTC found him guilty for the crime charged and affirmed by CA
ISSUE: Whether or not the failure of prosecution to present the confidential
informant was adverse to the conviction of guilt of the accused
RULING: Yes, it is adverse to the conviction of guilt hence he is acquitted
To secure the conviction of the accused who is charged with the illegal sale
of dangerous drugs as defined and punished by Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002), the State must
establish the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (a) that the
transaction or sale took place between the accused and the poseur buyer; and
( b) that the dangerous drugs subject of the transaction or sale is presented in
court as evidence of the corpus delicti.
Proof of the transaction must be credible and complete. In every criminal
prosecution, it is the State, and no other, that bears the burden of proving the
illegal sale of the dangerous drug beyond reasonable doubt.13 This
responsibility imposed on the State accords with the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence
until and unless the presumption of innocence in his favor has been overcome
by sufficient and competent evidence.
Here, the confidential informant was not a police officer. He was designated
to be the poseur buyer himself. It is notable that the members of the buy-bust
team arrested Andaya on the basis of the pre-arranged signal from the poseur
buyer. The pre-arranged signal signified to the members of the buy-bust team
that the transaction had been consummated between the poseur buyer and
Andaya. However, the State did not present the confidential informant/poseur
buyer during the trial to describe how exactly the transaction between him
and Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue against that,
except that none of the members of the buy-bust team had directly witnessed
the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur buyer due to their
being positioned at a distance from the poseur buyer and Andaya at the
moment of the supposed transaction.
The court is aware of the considerations why confidential informants are
usually not presented by the prosecution. There is the need to hide their
identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police. (People v. Khor,
307 SCRA 295 [1999], citing People v. Gireng, 241 SCRA 11 [1995].)
Foremost is the desire to protect them from being objects or targets of revenge
by the criminals they implicate once they become known.
In People vs Lopez (214 SCRA 323), it was held that there was no need for
the prosecution to present the confidential informer as the poseur buyer
himself positively identified the accused as the one who sold to him one deck
of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu." The trial court then properly
relied on the testimonies of the police officers despite the decision of the
prosecution not to present the informer.
The presentation of the confidential informants as witnesses for the
Prosecution in those instances could be excused because there were poseur
buyers who directly incriminated the accused. In this case, however, it was
different, because the poseur buyer and the confidential informant were one
and the same. Without the poseur buyer's testimony, the State did not credibly
incriminate Andaya.
Under the law, selling was any act "of giving away any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money or any other
consideration;" while delivering was any act "of knowingly passing a
dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with
or without consideration."
Given the legal characterizations of the acts constituting the offense charged,
the members of the buy-bust team could not incriminate Andaya by simply
declaring that they had seen from their positions the poseur buyer handing
something to Andaya who, in turn, gave something to the poseur buyer. If the
transaction was a sale, it was unwarranted to infer from such testimonies of
the members of the buy-bust team that what the poseur buyer handed over
were the marked P100.00 bills and that what Andaya gave to the poseur buyer
was the shabu purchased.
To start with, the record does not show what the prearranged signal consisted
of. It is fundamental enough to expect the State to be clear and definite about
its evidence of guilt, particularly here where the conviction of Andaya would
require him to spend the rest of his natural life behind bars. Nothing less
should be done here. Secondly, 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 liberty 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.
In this case, the arrest did not emanate from probable cause, for the formless
signal from the anonymous poseur buyer did not establish beyond reasonable
doubt the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165
People vs. Enumerable- Failure to establish the identity and integrity of the
illegal drug confiscated is crucial in conviction of guilt
FACTS: Respondent was charged with the violation of Sec. 5 RA 9165 or
the selling of illegal drugs.
Prosecutions version: a buy-bust operation was conducted by the elements
of the Batangas City Police Station with the assistance of Police Inspector
Danilo Balmes of the CIDG Batangas Province on May 27, 2004 at 11:30
oclock in the morning at the Petron Gasoline Station along B. Morada Ave.,
Lipa City. Using two (2) pieces of marked P500.00 bills and boodle money
to make the appearance of about P24,000.00, the police asset who posed as a
buyer transacted with the alias Gerry upon his arrival atthe gas station.
After the exchange of the marked money and the three (3) plastic sachets of
shabu placed in a black plastic box, alias Gerry was placed under arrest. He
was later identified as Gerardo Enumerable y de Villa. The marked money
was recovered from his possession by PO3 Villas who also took custody of
the specimen shabu which he marked EMV 1 to EMV 3. The three (3) sachets
of shabu were turned over to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory,
pursuant to the request for laboratory examination of P/Supt. Fausto
Manzanilla, Jr., Chief of Police, Batangas City PNP on May 27, 2004 at 5:25
p.m. However, that Crime laboratory indorsed the request with the specimens
on June 4, 2004 at 2:30 p.m. to the Regional Crime Laboratory in Calamba
City.
Police Inspector and Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas found the
specimens positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, as shown by Chemistry Report No. D-566-04, the
authenticity and genuineness of which were admitted by accused during the
pre-trial.
Defense waives his right to present evidence, instead he filed a demurrer of
evidence which was denied for failure of respondent to adduce reason
RTC convicted him of the crime charged and affirmed by CA on the grounds:
The Court of Appeals further ruled that the failure of the arresting
officers to conduct a physical inventory and to take photographs of
the seized items is not fatal as long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved, as in this case.
According to the Court of Appeals, the prosecution was able to
prove the unbroken chain of custody of the prohibited drug from the
time PO3 Villas confiscated the plastic sachets from appellant and
marked them at the place of arrest, to the time PO3 Villas brought
the plastic sachets to the police station and turned them over to the
investigator on-duty until the time SPO1 de Castro submitted the
marked plastic sachets to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office
Calabarzon for laboratory examination.
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution established the identity and integrity
of the confiscated illegal drug which is the corpus delicti of the offense
charged against appellant.
RULING: No, prosecution failed to establish such identity and integrity thus
warrants the acquittal of the accused
It is settled that in prosecutions for illegal sale of dangerous drug, not only
must the essential elements of the offense be proved beyond reasonable
doubt, but likewise the identity of the prohibited drug. The dangerous drug
itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence
is vital to a judgment of conviction.
Necessarily, the prosecution must establish that the substance seized from the
accused is the same substance offered in court as exhibit.1wphi1 In this
regard, the prosecution must sufficiently prove the unbroken chain of custody
of the confiscated illegal drug.
In People v. Watamama: In all prosecutions for the violation of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the existence of the prohibited
drug has to be proved. The chain of custody rule requires that testimony be
presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized
up to the time it is offered in evidence. To this end, the prosecution must
ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from
the accused.
What is demanded of police officers attending to drugs cases, they must
present justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved.
In People v. Climaco: [T]o establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt in cases involving dangerous drugs, it is important that the substance
illegally possessed in the first place be the same substance offered in court as
exhibit. This chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts
are removed concerning the identity of the evidence. When the identity of the
dangerous drug recovered from the accused is not the same dangerous drug
presented to the forensic chemist for review and examination, nor the same
dangerous drug presented to the court, the identity of the dangerous drug is
not preserved due to the broken chain of custody. With this, an element in the
criminal cases for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
corpus delicti, is not proven, and the accused must then be acquitted based on
reasonable doubt.
In this case, there was a glaring gap in the custody of the illegal drug since
the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish who had custody of the illegal
drug from the moment it was allegedly transmitted to the Batangas Provincial
Crime Laboratory on 27 May 2004 until it was allegedly delivered to the
Regional Crime Laboratory on 4 June 2004. There was no evidence presented
how the confiscated sachets of shabu were stored, preserved or labeled nor
who had custody prior to their delivery to the Regional Crime Laboratory and
their subsequent presentation before the trial court.
PO3 Villas had no personal knowledge on (1) how the illegal drugs were
delivered and who delivered the drugs from the Batangas Provincial Crime
Laboratory to the Regional Crime Laboratory; (2) who received the drugs in
the Regional Crime Laboratory; and (3) who had custody of the drugs from
27 May 2004 to 3 June 2004 until their presentation before the trial court.
The testimony of PO3 Villas merely attests to the existence of the
Memorandum from the Chief of the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory
to the Regional Crime Laboratory.
While appellant admitted during the pre-trial the authenticity and due
execution of the Chemistry Report, prepared by Police Inspector and Forensic
Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas, this admission merely affirms the existence
of the specimen and the request for laboratory examination and the results
thereof. Appellant's admission does not relate to the issue of chain of custody.
Dela Cruz vs. People- Confirmatory test shall refer only to the acts punished
under RA 9165 and not to other crimes
FACTS: Respondent was charged with the violation of Sec. 15 RA 9165 or
the use of illegal drugs.
Prosecutions version: NBI received a Complaint from Corazon Absin
(Corazon) and Charito Escobido (Charito). The complainants claimed that at
1:00 a.m. of that same day, Ariel Escobido (Ariel), the live-in partner of
Corazon and son of Charito, was picked up by several unknown male persons
believed to be police officers for allegedly selling drugs. An errand boy gave
a number to the complainants, and when the latter gave the number a ring,
they were instructed to proceed to the Gorordo Police Office located along
Gorordo Avenue, Cebu City.
In the said police office, they met "James" who demanded from them
P100,000, later lowered to P40,000, in exchange for the release of Ariel.
A team was immediately formed to implement an entrapment operation,
which took place inside a Jollibee branch at the corner of Gen. Maxilom and
Gorordo Avenues, Cebu City. The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz
by using a pre-marked 500 bill dusted with fluorescent powder, which was
made part of the amount demanded by "James" and handed by Corazon.
Petitioner was later brought to the forensic laboratory of the NBI-CEVRO
where forensic examination was done by forensic chemist Rommel
Paglinawan. Petitioner was required to submit his urine for drug testing. It
later yielded a positive result for presence of dangerous drugs as indicated in
the confirmatory test result labelled as Toxicology
Defenses version: The defense presented petitioner as the lone witness. He
denied the charges and testified that while eating at the said Jollibee branch,
he was arrested allegedly for extortion by NBI agents. When he was at the
NBI Office, he was required to extract urine for drug examination, but he
refused saying he wanted it to be done by the Philippine National Police
(PNP) Crime Laboratory and not by the NBI. His request was, however,
denied. He also requested to be allowed to call his lawyer prior to the taking
of his urine sample, to no avail.
RTC found him guilty of the crime charged and affirmed by CA
ISSUE: Whether or not the drug test conducted upon petitioner is legal
RULING: No, it is not legal thus inadmissible evidence
We find the ruling and reasoning of the trial court, as well as the subsequent
affirmation by the CA, erroneous on three counts.
First, "[a] person apprehended or arrested" cannot literally mean any person
apprehended or arrested for any crime. The phrase must be read in context
and understood in consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends
persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts listed under Article II of
the law.
To make the provision applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for
any crime not listed under Article II is tantamount to unduly expanding its
meaning. Note that accused appellant here was arrested in the alleged act of
extortion.
This Court notes the practice of law enforcers of filing charges under Sec. 11
in cases where the presence of dangerous drugs as basis for possession is only
and solely in the form of residue, being subsumed under the last paragraph of
Sec. 11. Although not incorrect, it would be more in keeping with the intent
of the law to file charges under Sec. 15 instead in order to rehabilitate first
time offenders of drug use, provided that there is a positive confirmatory test
result as required under Sec. 15.
To file charges under Sec. 11 on the basis of residue alone would frustrate
the objective of the law to rehabilitate drug users and provide them with an
opportunity to recover for a second chance at life.
In the case at bench, the presence of dangerous drugs was only in the form of
residue on the drug paraphernalia, and the accused were found positive for
use of dangerous drugs. Granting that the arrest was legal, the evidence
obtained admissible, and the chain of custody intact, the law enforcers should
have filed charges under Sec. 15, R.A. No. 9165 or for use of dangerous drugs
and, if there was no residue at all, they should have been charged under Sec.
14
In order to effectively fulfill the intent of the law to rehabilitate drug users,
this Court thus calls on law enforcers and prosecutors in dangerous drugs
cases to exercise proper discretion in filing charges when the presence of
dangerous drugs is only and solely in the form of residue and the confirmatory
test required under Sec. 15 is positive for use of dangerous drugs. In such
cases, to afford the accused a chance to be rehabilitated, the filing of charges
for or involving possession of dangerous drugs should only be done when
another separate quantity of dangerous drugs, other than mere residue, is
found in the possession of the accused as provided for in Sec. 15.
Furthermore, making the phrase "a person apprehended or arrested" in
Section 15 applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful
acts, not only under R.A. 9165 but for all other crimes, is tantamount to a
mandatory drug testing of all persons apprehended or arrested for any crime.
In Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board and Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency: To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a
blatant attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal prosecution,
contrary to the stated objectives of RA 6195. Drug testing in this case would
violate a persons right to privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the
Constitution. Worse still, the accused persons are veritably forced to
incriminate themselves.
The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes
the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from the
accused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be
material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the
accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding
hand of counsel is not required.
In the instant case, we fail to see how a urine sample could be material to the
charge of extortion.1wphi1 The RTC and the CA, therefore, both erred when
they held that the extraction of petitioners urine for purposes of drug testing
was "merely a mechanical act, hence, falling outside the concept of a
custodial investigation."
We emphasize that the circumstances in Gutangare case clearly different
from the circumstances of petitioner in the instant case. First, Gutang was
arrested in relation to a drug case. Second, he volunteered to give his urine.
Third, there were other pieces of evidence that point to his culpability for the
crimes charged. In the present case, though, petitioner was arrested for
extortion; he resisted having his urine sample taken; and finally, his urine
sample was the only available evidencethat was used as basis for his
conviction for the use of illegal drugs.
The drug test was a violation of petitioners right to privacy and right against
self-incrimination.
It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted and
tested for drugs. He also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test. He was
adamant in exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved futile, because
he was still compelled to submit his urine for drug testing under those
circumstances.
People vs. Badilla- Failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule
is not crucial to the conviction of guilt, what is needed is the preservation of
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item
FACTS: Respondent if guilty for violating sec. 11 of RA 9165 or possession
of illegal drugs
Prosecutions version: On September 6, 2010, around 10:15 p.rn., P02 Paras
received a phone call from a concerned citizen inform--ing him that someone
was indiscriminately firing a gun at BMBA Compound, 4th Avenue,
Caloocan City. P02 Paras and his companions, P02 Ronquillo, P03
Baldomero and P02 Woo, responded to the call and reached the target area
around 10:25 p.m. 7 There they saw a male person, later identified as
appellant Enrico Briones Badilla, standing along the alley. Appellant was
suspiciously in the act of pulling or drawing something from his pocket; thus,
as a precautionary measure, and thinking that a concealed weapon was inside
his pocket, P02 Paras immediately introduced himself as a police officer, held
appellant's arm, and asked the latter to bring out his hand from his pocket. 8
It turned out that appellant was holding a plastic sachet with white crystalline
substance. P02 Paras confiscated the plastic sachet from appellant, informed
him of his constitutional rights, and arrested him. Appellant and the
confiscated plastic sachet were brought to the Station.
P02 Paras confiscated the plastic sachet with white crystalline substance from
appellant, the same remained in P02 Paras' possession until appellant and the
seized item were brought to the SAID-SOTG office. Upon reaching the
office, P02 Paras marked the plastic sachet with his initials "BP/EBB 07 Sept
2010" and turned it over to police investigator P02 Espadero who, in turn,
placed it in a much bigger plastic sachet and marked the bigger plastic sachet
with "SAID-SOTG EVIDENCE 07 Sept 2010 ". Then, P02 Espadero
prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination dated September 7, 2010.36
Later, P02 Espadero brought the plastic sachet and the request to the PNP
Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office where PO 1 Pataweg, the
duty desk officer, received the same. Thereafter, PO 1 Pataweg, in the
presence of P02 Espadero, turned over the requests and specimen for
laboratory examination to P/Sr. Insp. Libres, a forensic chemist. Per Physical
Science Report No. D-246-10, the white crystalline substance was found
positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, while, per
Physical Evidence Report No. DT-250-10, the urine sample taken from
appellant was found positive for methylamphetamine. Upon completion of
the laboratory examination on the seized item, P/Sr. Insp. Libres marked the
plastic sachet with "A" MML, countersigned it, and placed it in a brown
envelope where she also wrote her initials "MML" and marked the envelope
with "D-246-1 O". She then deposited the envelope containing the seized
item to the evidence custodian of their office. She later retrieved the same
from the evidence custodian for presentation in court. The Chemistry Report
and the subject specimen were presented in court as evidence, and were
properly identified by prosecution witnesses.
Defenses version: Appellant narrated that on September 6, 2010, around
10:30 in the evening, he was walking along 4111 Avenue, Caloocan City
when a male person called him. Recognizing the man as a police officer who
frequented their place, he approached the man. When he got near the man,
the latter's companion poked a gun at him. By instinct, he shoved the gun
away and it fell on the ground.
According to appellant, the police officer then arrested him, shoved him
aboard the police vehicle, and brought him to 3rd Avenue, Caloocan City.
When the police officers failed to see their target person at the said place,
they left and went to the police station where he was told that he would be
charged with a non-bailable offense. He only saw the plastic sachet
containing shabu in court.
RTC found him guilty of the crime charged and affirmed by CA
ISSUE: Whether or not prosecution failed to prove that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drug
RULING: No, the prosecution sufficiently established the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drug
In the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous
drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and, in sustaining
a conviction therefor, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must
definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily
arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct,
not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or
substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or
uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must
definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug
actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165 fails.
Under the same proviso, however, non-compliance with the stipulated
procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officers.
Moreover, the rule on chain of custody under the foregoing enactments
expressly demands the identification of the persons who handled the
confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized
movements of the illegal drugs from the time they are seized from the accused
until the time they are presented in court. The chain of custody requirement
performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the
identity of the evidence are removed. To be admissible, the prosecution must
show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at
least between the time it came into possession of the police officers until it
was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was
offered in evidence.
According to the narration of facts state above, the prosecution was able to
demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug
had not been compromised because it established the crucial link in the chain
of custody of the seized item from the time it was first discovered until it was
brought to the court for examination
In this case, the facts persuasively proved that the sachet of shabu presented
in court was the same item seized from appellant. The integrity and
evidentiary value thereof were duly preserved. The marking and the handling
of the specimen were testified to by P02 Paras and P02 Espadero. During the
trial, the prosecution and the defense entered into a stipulation that witnesses
P02 Espadero and P/Sr. Insp. Libres (the forensic chemist) could identify the
subject specimen as well as the documents they prepared. The aforesaid
witnesses testified about every link in the chain, from the moment the seized
item was picked up to the time it was offered into evidence in court.
However, while the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and
unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken
chain. Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused's arrest illegal or the items
seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. The most important factor is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item.
Therefore, in this case, even though the prosecution failed to submit in
evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drug nor mark
the same immediately after seizure, these will not render appellant's arrest
illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. There is substantial
compliance by the police officers as to the required procedure on the custody
and control of the confiscated item. The succession of events established by
evidence and the overall handling of the seized item by the prosecution
witnesses all show that the item seized was the same evidence subsequently
identified and testified to in open court.
People vs. Morilla- Conspiracy, transportation and proper penalty to be
imposed for violation of RA 9165
FACTS: Morilla, Mitra, Willie and Ruel were all charged with the violation
of RA 9165 which prohibits the transportation of illegal drugs
A valid search conducted by police officers on the vehicles driven by Mayor
Mitra and Morilla, one with control number 888 and the other an ambulance
with plate number SFK-372, as the police officers have already acquired prior
knowledge that the said vehicles were suspected to be used for transportation
of dangerous drugs. During the checkpoint in Real, Quezon, the information
turned out to be accurate and indeed, the two accused had in their motor
vehicles more than five hundred kilos of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
the Starex van driven by Mayor Mitra and the ambulance van driven by
Morilla, left Infanta, Quezon en route to Manila. The Starex van which was
ahead of the ambulance was able to pass the checkpoint set up by the police
officers. However, the ambulance driven by Morilla was stopped by police
officers. Through the untinted window, one of the police officers noticed
several sacks inside the van. Upon inquiry of the contents, Morilla replied
that the sacks contained narra wooden tiles.
Unconvinced, the police officers requested Morilla to open the rear door of
the car for further inspection. When it was opened, the operatives noticed that
white crystalline granules were scattered on the floor, prompting them to
request Morilla to open the sacks. At this moment, Morilla told the police
officers that he was with Mayor Mitra in an attempt to persuade them to let
him pass. His request was rejected by the police officers and upon inspection,
the contents of the sacks turned out to be sacks of methamphetamine
hydrochloride. This discovery prompted the operatives to chase the Starex
van of Mayor Mitra. The police officers were able to overtake the van and
Mayor Mitra was asked to stop. They then inquired if the mayor knew
Morilla. On plain view, the operatives noticed that his van was also loaded
with sacks like the ones found in the ambulance. Thus, Mayor Mitra was also
requested to open the door of the vehicle for inspection. At this instance,
Mayor Mitra offered to settle the matter but the same was rejected. Upon
examination, the contents of the sacks were likewise found to contain sacks
of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
RTC found Morilla and Mitra guilty of the crime charged and acquitted Ruel
and Willie for failure of prosecution to establish their guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The ruling of the trial court is affirmed by CA
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove Morillas
culpability as alleged in the information
RULING: Yes, the prosecution was able to prove is culpability
Morillas right on questioning the validity of the information as it lacks
allegation of conspiracy is waive for failure to raise it while under trial as a
motion to quash.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To determine
conspiracy, there must be a common design to commit a felony.
In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties actually came together
and agreed in express terms to enter into and pursue a common design. The
assent of the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime, usually
inferred from proof of facts and circumstances which, taken together, indicate
that they are parts of some complete whole.
In this case, the totality of the factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that
Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common desire to transport the
dangerous drugs. Both vehicles loaded with several sacks of dangerous drugs,
were on convoy from Quezon to Manila. Mayor Mitra was able to drive
through the checkpoint set up by the police operatives. When it was Morillas
turn to pass through the checkpoint, he was requested to open the rear door
for a routinary check. Noticing white granules scattered on the floor, the
police officers requested Morilla to open the sacks. If indeed he was not
involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not have told the police
officers that he was with the mayor.
Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in flagrante delicto in the act of
transporting the dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport" as used
under the Dangerous Drugs Act means "to carry or convey from one place to
another."
It was well established during trial that Morilla was driving the ambulance
following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was driving a Starex van going to
Manila. The very act of transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is
malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense under a special law. The
fact of transportation of the sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be
accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or knowledge.
Originally, under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 6425, the penalty for illegal
transportation of methamphetamine hydrochloride was imprisonment
ranging from six years and one day to twelve years and a fine ranging from
six thousand to twelve thousand pesos. Pursuant to Presidential Decree No.
1683, the penalty was amended to life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from twenty to thirty thousand pesos. The penalty was further
amended in Republic Act No. 7659, where the penalty was changed to
reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand
pesos to ten million pesos.
From the foregoing, we sustain the imposed penalty of fine of P10,000,00.00
to be paid by each of the accused but amend the penalty to reclusion perpetua
following the provisions of Republic Act No. 7659 and the principle of
retroactive application of lighter penalty. Reclusion perpetua entails
imprisonment for at least thirty (30) years after which the convict becomes
eligible for pardon. It also carries with it accessory penalties, namely:
perpetual special disqualification, etc. Life imprisonment, on the other hand,
does not appear to have any definite extent or duration and carries no
accessory penalties
People vs. Rolando Laylo- Attempted sale of illegal drugs punished under
sec. 26 of RA 9165
FACTS: Rolando Laylo is charged for the violation of Sec. 26 of RA 9165
or the attempted sale of shabu while his wife Melitona Ritwal is charged for
the violation of Sec. 11 of RA 9165 or illegal possession. However Ritwal
jumped bail and was tried in absentia.
Prosecutions version: In the afternoon of 17 December 2005, PO1 Reyes
and PO1 Pastor, both wearing civilian clothes, were conducting anti-drug
surveillance operations at Lozana Street, Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal.
While the police officers were in front of a sari-sari store at around 5:40 p.m.,
appellant Laylo and his live-in partner, Ritwal, approached them and asked,
"Gusto mong umiskor ng shabu?" PO1 Reyes replied, "Bakit mayroon ka
ba?" Laylo then brought out two plastic bags containing shabu and told the
police officers, "Dos (P200.00) ang isa." Upon hearing this, the police
officers introduced themselves as cops. PO1 Reyes immediately arrested
Laylo. Ritwal, on the other, tried to get away but PO1 Pastor caught up with
her. PO1 Pastor then frisked Ritwal and found another sachet of shabu in a
SIM card case which Ritwal was carrying.
PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor marked the three plastic sachets of shabu
recovered from Laylo and Ritwal and forwarded them to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory for forensic testing. Forensic Chemist
Police Inspector Yehla C. Manaog conducted the laboratory examination on
the specimens submitted and found the recovered items positive for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
Defenses version: Laylo testified that while he and his common-law wife,
Ritwal, were walking on the street, two men grabbed them. The two men,
who they later identified as PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, dragged them to their
house. Once inside, the police officers placed two plastic sachets in each of
their pockets. Afterwards, they were brought to the police station where,
despite protests and claims that the drugs were planted on them, they were
arrested and charged.
themselves and placed appellant and Ritwal under arrest. From the
testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution was able to establish that there
was an attempt to sell shabu. In addition, the plastic sachets were presented
in court as evidence of corpus delicti. Thus, the elements of the crime charged
were sufficiently established by evidence.

This was further corroborated by Laylos three neighbors

RTC found him guilty of the crime charged and affirmed by CA

ISSUE: Whether or not prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond

reasonable doubt

RULING: No, prosecution did not fail to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1)
the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.

From the testimonies given, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor testified that they
were the poseur-buyers in the sale. Both positively identified appellant as the
seller of the substance contained in plastic sachets which were found to be
positive for shabu. The same plastic sachets were likewise identified by the
prosecution witnesses when presented in court. Even the consideration of
P200.00 for each sachet had been made known by appellant to the police
officers. However, the sale was interrupted when the police officers
introduced themselves as cops and immediately arrested appellant and his
live-in partner Ritwal. Thus, the sale was not consummated but merely
attempted. Thus, appellant was charged with attempted sale of dangerous
drugs.

Here, appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the
commission of the intended crime by showing the substance to PO1 Reyes
and PO1 Pastor. The sale was aborted when the police officers identified