People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, May 6, 2010.

FACTS: Major Jerry Galvan received a telephone call from a concerned citizen about an illegal drug trade being conducted by a certain alias Tune in Barangay Bambang, Pasig City. Thereafter, Major Galvan coordinated with PDEA for the conduct of a buy-bust operation. Thus, a team led by SPO3 Leneal Matias, PO3 Carlo Luna and PO1 Michael Familara (PO1 FAMILARA) was formed to buy shabu from Tune with the aid of a confidential informant. 2 One Hundred Peso bills were marked MRF and delivered to the assigned poseur-buyer, PO1 FAMILARA. The team thereafter proceeded to Pasig City. The informant pointed to a house where accused-appellant JOSEPH was found standing. SPO3 Leneal Matias and PO3 Carlo Luna positioned themselves at a distance where they can see PO1 FAMILARA, who approached the accused-appellant JOSEPH together with the confidential informant. The confidential informant greeted the accused-appellant JOSEPH and informed him that his companion, PO1 FAMILARA, would buy Php 200.00 worth of shabu. Accused-appellant JOSEPH thereafter knocked at the door of Tune, who turned out to be accused-appellant ANTHONY. PO1 FAMILARA thereafter handed the marked money to the accused-appellant JOSEPH, who in turn handed the same to the accused-appellant ANTHONY. Upon receiving the money, accused-appellant ANTHONY then took out a plastic sachet and handed the same to the accused-appellant JOSEPH. Accused-appellant JOSEPH, in turn, handed the plastic sachets to PO1 FAMILARA. FAMILARA thereafter immediately grabbed accused-appellant JOSEPHs hand while the rest of the team rushed to the scene to arrest the accused-appellants. Accused-appellant ANTHONY attempted to escape to his house but was subsequently likewise apprehended.Both accused-appellants were bodily frisked after their apprehension. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were brought to the Pasig Police Station for further investigation, and the evidence recovered were marked and forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. ISSUE: *sorry, di ko din alam. Hehe. HELD: In cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there be evidence to the contrary. Moreover, in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute such a serious crime against the appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over appellants self-serving and uncorroborated denial. For the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.

Lucas v. Lucas, G.R. No. 190710, June 6, 2011 FACTS: Jesse U. Lucas (Jesse), filed a Petition to Establish Filiation with a Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Jesse narrated his mothers account of her history with Jesus S. Lucas (Jesus) and attached several copies of his personal documents. Though Jesus was not summoned and was not served a copy of the petition, he nevertheless learned of it and obtained for himself a copy. He then filed a Special Appearance and Comment manifesting among others that the petition was adversarial in nature and therefore summons should be served on him as respondent. Unbeknownst to Jesus on the day before he filed his Comment, Jesse filed a Very Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case which the RTC found to be sufficient in form and hence set the case for hearing. After learning of the RTCs order, Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that DNA testing cannot be had on the basis of a mere allegation pointing to him as Jesses father. The CA ruled in favor of Jesus, it noted that Jesse failed to show that the four significant aspects of a traditional paternity action had been met and held that DNA testing should not be allowed when the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case. ISSUE: Whether or not a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can issue a DNA testing order. Whether blood testing order is equivalent to search under the Constitution. HELD: Court order for blood testing equivalent to search under the Constitution. In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there must be a show cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or a reasonable possibility of paternity or good cause for the holding of the test. In these states, a court order for blood testing is considered a search, which, under their Constitutions (as in ours), must be preceded by a finding of probable cause in order to be valid. Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable possibility, was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of probable cause. The Supreme Court of Louisiana eloquently explained; Although a paternity action is civil, not criminal, the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is still applicable, and a proper showing of sufficient justification under the particular factual circumstances of the case must be made before a court may order a compulsory blood test. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind of procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost universally found that a preliminary showing must be made before a court can constitutionally order compulsory blood testing in paternity cases. We agree, and find that, as a preliminary matter, before the court may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants issuance of a court order for blood testing. The same condition precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the putative father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.

Pollo v Chairperson David, G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011 FACTS: Petitioner is a former Supervising Personnel Specialist of the CSC Regional Office No. IV and also the Officer-in-Charge of the Public Assistance and Liaison Division (PALD) under the Mamamayan Muna Hindi Mamaya Na program of the CSC. On January 3, 2007 at around 2:30 p.m., an unsigned letter-complaint addressed to respondent CSC Chairperson Karina Constantino-David which was marked Confidential and sent through a courier service (LBC) from a certain Alan San Pascual of Bagong Silang, Caloocan City, was received by the Integrated Records Management Office (IRMO) at the CSC Central Office. Following office practice in which documents marked Confidential are left unopened and instead sent to the addressee, the aforesaid letter was given directly to Chairperson David. The letter requested the office of David to investigate the anomaly. Chairperson David immediately formed a team of four personnel with background in information technology (IT), and issued a memo directing them to conduct an investigation and specifically to back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions. The backing-up of all files in the hard disk of computers at the PALD and Legal Services Division (LSD) was witnessed by several employees, together with Directors Castillo and Unite who closely monitored said activity. Several diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from the hard disk of PALD and LSD computers were turned over to Chairperson David. The contents of the diskettes were examined by the CSCs Office for Legal Affairs (OLA). It was found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the computer assigned to and being used by the petitioner, numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or letters n connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals. On the basis of this finding, Chairperson David issued the Show-Cause Order dated January 11, 2007, requiring the petitioner, who had gone on extended leave, to submit his explanation or counter-affidavit within five days from notice. ISSUE: Whether or not the search conducted on petitioners computer is valid and constitutional. HELD: The CSC noted the dearth of jurisprudence relevant to the factual milieu of this case where the government as employer invades the private files of an employee stored in the computer assigned to him for his official use, in the course of initial investigation of possible misconduct committed by said employee and without the latters consent or participation. The CSC thus turned to relevant rulings of the United States Supreme Court, and cited the leading case of OConnor v. Ortega*22+ as authority for the view that government agencies, in their capacity as employers, rather than law enforcers, could validly conduct search and seizure in the governmental workplace without meeting the probable cause or warrant requirement for search and seizure. Another ruling cited by the CSC is the more recent case of United States v. Mark L. Simons which declared that the federal agencys computer use policy foreclosed any inference of reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of its employees. Though the Court therein recognized that such policy did not, at the same time, erode the respondents legitimate expectation of privacy in the office in which the computer was installed, still, the warrantless search of the employees office was upheld as valid because a government employer is entitled to conduct a warrantless search pursuant to an investigation of work-related misconduct provided the search is reasonable in its inception and scope.