People vs Empleo

G.R. No. 148547

September 27, 2006
Carpio J.

Facts: On 6 October 1999, a search warrant was issued for the search and seizure of shabu and
paraphernalia at the room rented by private respondent Dante Mah ("private respondent") at a Lodge in
Dipolog City. He was found to be in possession of 6.4grams of Shabu and 1 roll or stick of marijuana and
the prosecution filed two informations, one for possession of shabu and the other for possession of
marijuana before the RTC.

Conflict: Respondent pleaded not guilty and petitioned to dismiss the other case because respondent
alleged that the single act of possession of drugs committed at the same time and at the same place
cannot be the subject of two separate Informations. Petition to dismiss was granted in the RTC (Empleo)
and in CA.

Issue: Whether the prosecution should file only one Information for illegal possession of shabu and
marijuana.

Held: Yes. The prosecution was correct in filing two separate Informations for the crimes of illegal
possession of shabu and illegal possession of marijuana. Clearly, the Legislature did not intend to lump
these two separate crimes into just one crime of "possession of dangerous drugs." Otherwise, there
would be no need to specify the different kinds of drugs and the corresponding quantity in the
application of the appropriate penalty. Multiple offenses can be committed under RA 6425 even if the
crimes are committed in the same place, at the same time, and by the same person. Same ruling was
applied to People vs Tira.

People vs Padua
G.R. No. 174097
July 21, 2010
De Castro J.

Facts: Two separate informations dated August 19, 2002 were filed before the RTC against appellant for
llegal sale and possession of shabu. According to the prosecution a buy-bust operation was held on Aug
18, 2002 at the house of Padua in Taguig City wherein a police officer who posed as buyer was handed
by Padua an aluminium sachet containing shabu and the police gave him a marked 200pesos in return.
Upon the signal of the police officer-buyer the buy-bust team frisked and arrested Padua. They found
four sachets of shabu and the marked money on Paduas pockets. Later, the buy-bust team turned over
the seized drugs to the investigator, who thereafter brought the evidence to the SPD Crime Laboratory
Office, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City.

Conflict: The defense, on the other hand, had an entirely different version of what transpired that
morning. Padua alleges that there was no buy-bust operation and that police officers when into his
house and handcuffed him and asked him to give them 120,000 pesos otherwise a case will be filed.
Padua was found guilty in the RTC and he appealed in the Court of Appeals.

Issue:
1. The guilt of the Padua was not proven beyond reasonable doubt for failure of the prosecution to
establish the chain of custody of the specimen. (CA)
2. Whether or not testimony of the informant is essential in drug pushing cases (CA)
3. Whether or not there was a sale of dangerous drugs
4. Whether or not there was possession of dangerous drugs

Held:
1. There is no broken chain in the custody of the seized items, found to be shabu, from the time
PO2 Aguilar got the shabu, to the time it was turned over to the investigating officer, and up to
the time it was brought to the forensic chemist at the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory
examination. Non-compliance with the stipulated procedure(RA 9165), 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. The testimony of PO2 Aguilar outlines the chain of custody of the
confiscated items, i.e., sachets of shabu. The fact that the persons who had possession or
custody of the subject drugs, such as Forensic Chemist Rivera-Dagasdas and the alleged
investigator, were not presented as witnesses to corroborate Aguilars testimony is of no
moment. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the
forensic chemist, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. Further, not all people who
came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in
Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such requirement
People vs Zeng Hua Dian
2. No. It is well-settled that the testimony of an informant in drug -pushing cases is not essential
for conviction and may be dispensed if the poseur-buyer testified on the same. Informants are
almost always never presented in court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service
to the police. Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required
to testify in court. People vs Zeng Hua Dian


3. Yer. The element of a sale of drugs are (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In the
instant case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established by the prosecution.
The witness for the prosecution was able to prove that the buy-bust operation indeed took
place, and the shabu subject of the sale was brought to and duly identified in court. The
poseurbuyer (PO2 Aguilar) positively identified accused-appellant as the one who had sold to
him one heatsealed, transparent plastic sachet containing twenty decigrams (0.20 gram) of
shabu. After accused appellant received the marked money and handed to PO2 Aguilar one
plastic sachet of shabu, the latter called his team mates and right away frisked the accused-
appellant.
4. Yes. Elements were present and duly proven in possession of illegal drugs (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession
is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possesses the said drug.
(1) accused-appellant was found to be in possession of .70 gram of shabu, a dangerous drug; (2)
the identity of accused-appellant as the person found in possession of the dangerous drug was
established; and (3) accused-appellant, the person found to be in possession, was not
authorized to possess the dangerous drug. The prosecution has established that the arresting
officers were able to retrieve four more plastic sachets of shabu in accused-appellants
possession when he was directed to empty his pockets upon being arrested in flagrante delicto
in the buy-bust operation.