People v.

Chi Chan Liu

GR No. 189272 Jan. 21,2015

Facts: Dec. 3, 1998- SPO2 Lazaro

Paglicawan and SPO3 Isagani Yuzon received a radio message from Barangay Captain of
Ambil Island,Looc, Oriental Mindoro saying that there is a suspicious looking boat
somewhere w/in the vicinity of the island and they responded by heading towards the
location and spotted 2 boats anchored side by side, one of which resembled a fishing boat
and the other, a speedboat.
2. They noticed one (1) person onboard the fishing boat and two (2) onboard the speed
boat who were transferring cargo from the former to the latter. As they
moved closer to the area, the fishing boat hurriedly sped away but due to the strong waves
the officers were only able to reach the speedboat, w/c had some engine problems, and
found Respondents with 45 transparent plastic bags(weighing 1kilo each) containing a
white, crystalline substance which they later found out and tested to be methamphetamine
hydrochloride (Shabu). In the course of the arrest, the officers asked the respondents for
their identification papers but respondents failed to do so. The officers directed respondents
to transfer to their service boat and thereafter towed respondent’s speed boat to the shore
behind the Municipal Hall of Looc, Occidental, Mindoro. Respondents repeatedly offered
them “big, big amount of money” which they ignored.
3. Since the respondents do not know how to speak in English the officers had to get an
interpreter to tell them (respondents) of their Miranda rights.
-An information was filed against the respondents for violation of the Dangerous Drug Act.
The respondents plead not guilty.
4. Trial Court found respondents guilty beyond reasonable doubt and the CA affirmed in
toto the decision of the Trial Court.
Petitioner/Respondents’ contention:
-They had witnesses which said that the bags of shabu was not recovered from the speed
boat but rather from the house of the Barangay captain.
-They allege a violation of their constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and
seizures. Due to the absence of probable cause, their warrantless arrest and consequent
search and seizure on their persons and possession is unjustified and hence, the
confiscated bags of regulated drugs therefrom are inadmissible against them.

Issue: Whether there was a violation of respondents’ constitutionjal right on unreasonable

search and if the warrantless arrest and search and seizure of their persons and possession
was unjustified so as to make the confiscated bags inadmissible as evidence against them?

Held: NO. In this case, appellants were actually committing a crime and were caught by
the apprehending officers in flagrante delicto. As previously stated, the records reveal that
on the date of their arrest, the apprehending officers, while acting upon a report from the
Barangay Captain, spotted appellants transferring cargo from one boat to another.
However, one of the boats hastily sped away when they drew closer to the appellants,
naturally arousing the suspicion of the officers. Soon after, the police officers found them
with the illegal drugs plainly exposed to the view of the officers. When they requested
appellants to show proper documentation as to their identity as well as their purpose for
being there, appellants refused to show them anything much less respond to any of their
questions. In fact, when the officers were transporting appellants and the illegal drugs to the
shore, the appellant Chi Chan Liu even repeatedly offered the arresting officers “big, big
amount of money.” Hence, the circumstances prior to and surrounding the arrest of
appellants clearly show that they were arrested when they were actually committing a
crime within the view of the arresting officers, who had reasonable ground to believe that a
crime was being committed.
-In addition, this Court does not find the consequent warrantless search and seizure
conducted on appellants unreasonable in view of the fact that the bags containing the
regulated drugs were in plain view of the arresting officers, one of the judicially recognized
exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a search warrant.

Summary:
-Arrest was valid because it was done in flagrante delicto which falls under Sec5 rule 113
-Search and seizure of plastic bags containing shabu was valid due to the plain view
doctrine.
 De Lima v. Guerrero

G.R. No. 229781 October 10, 2017

Facts: The Senate and the House of Representatives conducted several inquiries on the
proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting
inmates who executed affidavits in support of their testimonies. These legislative
inquiries led to the filing of 4 complaints with the Department of Justice. The DOJ Panel
conducted a preliminary hearing on December 2, 2016, wherein the petitioner, through
her counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion to Immediately Endorse the Cases to the Office of
the Ombudsman and for the Inhibition of the Panel of Prosecutors and the Secretary of
Justice ("Omnibus Motion"). In the main, the petitioner argued that the Office of the
Ombudsman has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear the four complaints
against her. Further, alleging evident partiality on the part of the DOJ Panel, the
petitioner contended that the DOJ prosecutors should inhibit themselves and refer the
complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman. 3 information were filed against De Lima.
One of the Informationswas docketed as Criminal Case No. 17-16518 and raffled off to
Branch 204, presided by respondent judge. This Information charging petitioner for
violation of Section 5 in relation to Section (jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28 of Republic
Act No. (RA) 9165. Alleging that :
“Then DOJ Sec. De Lima and Ragos, with the use of their power, position, and authority,
demand, solicit and extort money from the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison
to support the senatorial bid of De Lima in the May 2016 election; by reason of which,
the inmates, not being lawfully authorized by law and through the use of mobile phones
and other electronic devices, did then and there willfully and unlawfully trade and
traffic dangerous drugs, and thereafter give and deliver to De Lima, through Ragos and
Dayan, the proceeds of illegal drug trading amounting to Five Million (₱5,000,000.00)
Pesos on 24 November 2012, Five Million (₱5,000,000.00) Pesos on 15 December 2012,
and One Hundred Thousand (₱100,000.00) Pesos weekly "tara" each from the high
profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison.”

On February 20, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, mainly raising the following:
the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged against petitioner; the DOJ Panel
lacks authority to file the Information; the Information charges more than one offense;
the allegations and the recitals of facts do not allege the corpus delicti of the charge;
the Information is based on testimonies of witnesses who are not qualified to be
discharged as state witnesses; and the testimonies of these witnesses are hearsay.

Issue: 1) Whether the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction
over the violation of Republic Act No. 9165 averred in the assailed Information.
2) Whether or not the pendency of the Motion to Quash the Information before the trial
court renders the instant petition premature.
3) Whether respondent judge abused its discretion in finding probable cause in
ordering the arrest of De Lima.

Held: 1) The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to
the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27
or higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to
office. The power of the Sandiganbayan to sit in judgment of high-ranking government
officials is not omnipotent. The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is circumscribed by law and
its limits are currently defined and prescribed by RA 10660,97 which amended
Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1606.98 As it now stands, the Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction over the following:

SEC. 4. Jurisdiction. - The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in

all cases involving:

a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII,
Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials
occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting
or interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:

(1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the Compensation and Position
Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically including:

xxxx

(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade '27' and higher under
the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;

(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution;

(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without prejudice to the
provisions of the Constitution; and

(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade '27' and higher under the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.

b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed
by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a. of this section in
relation to their office.

c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos.
1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986. Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have
exclusive original jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to
the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the government or bribery
arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not
exceeding One Million pesos (₱l,000,000.00).

The foregoing immediately betrays that the Sandiganbayan primarily sits as a special
anti-graft court pursuant to a specific injunction in the 1973 Constitution.99 Its
characterization and continuation as such was expressly given a constitutional fiat
under Section 4, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which states:
SECTION 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to
function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.

It should occasion no surprise, therefore, that the Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction

to hear drug-related cases. Even Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660,
touted by the petitioner and the dissents as a catchall provision, does not operate to
strip the R TCs of its exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165. As pointed
out by Justices Tijam and Martires, a perusal of the drugs law will reveal that public
officials were never considered excluded from its scope. Hence, Section 27 of RA 9165
punishes government officials found to have benefited from the trafficking of
dangerous drugs, while Section 28 of the law imposes the maximum penalty on such
government officials and employees.

In this case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court with the jurisdiction to "exclusively try
and hear cases involving violations of [RA 9165)." This is an exception, couched in the
special law on dangerous drugs, to the general rule under Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as
amended by RA 10660. It is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails
over a general law and the latter is to be considered as an exception to the general

2) THE PRESENT PETITION IS PREMATURE

Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and prohibiting respondent judge from
conducting further proceedings until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with
finality; Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the parties to the status prior to the
issuance of the Order and Warrant of Arrest, both dated
February 23, 201 7, thereby recalling both processes and restoring petitioner to her
liberty and freedom
In the palpable absence of a ruling on the Motion to Quash -- which puts the jurisdiction
of the lower court in issue -- there is no controversy for this Court to resolve; there is
simply no final judgment or order of the lower court to review, revise, reverse, modify, or
affirm. As per the block letter provision of the Constitution, this Court cannot exercise its
jurisdiction in a vacuum nor issue a definitive ruling on mere suppositions.

3) Notably, for purposes of determining the propriety of the issuance of a warrant of

arrest, the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of the
guilt of the accused.129 She is given wide latitude of discretion in the determination of
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest.130 A finding of probable cause
to order the accused's arrest does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction.131 It is enough that it is believed that the act or
omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.132

Again, per the February 23, 2017 Order, respondent judge evaluated all the evidence
presented during the preliminary investigation and on the basis thereof found probable
cause to issue the warrant of arrest against the petitioner. This is not surprising given that
the only evidence available on record are those provided by the complainants and
the petitioner, in fact, did not present any counter-affidavit or evidence to controvert
this. Thus, there is nothing to disprove the following preliminary findings of the DOJ
prosecutors relative to the allegations in the Information filed in Criminal Case No. 17-
165:
Thus, from November 2012 to March 2013, De Lima[,] Ragos and Dayan should be
indicted for violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 3Gj), Section 26(b) and Section
28, of R.A. 9165, owing to the delivery of PS million in two (2) occasions, on 24 November
2012 and 15 December 2012, to Dayan and De Lima. The monies came inmate Peter
Co [were] proceeds from illicit drug trade, which were given to support the senatorial
bid of De Lima.

Also in the same period, Dayan demanded from Ragos money to support the senatorial
bid of De Lima. Ragos demanded and received ₱100,000 tara from each of the high-
profile inmates in exchange for privileges, including their illicit drug trade. Ablen
collected the money for Ragos who, in turn, delivered them to Dayan at De Lima's
residence.
 People v. Dasigan
GR No. 206229, Feb 04, 2015

Facts: On December 5, 2006, at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) office,
Melvin Jones Grandstand, Harrison Road, Baguio City, a male confidential informant
reported to Police Chief Inspector Luisito Meris that a certain alias "Amy" is engaged in
delivering Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "Shabu" within the vicinity
of the La Trinidad Trading Post at Km. 5, La Trinidad, Benguet. Those present at the
office were PO2 Arieltino Corpuz, SPO2 Cabily Agbayani and SPO1 Bernardo Ventura
and they all heard this piece of information. PCI Meris relayed the information to the
PDEA Regional Director, Col. Inmodias and the latter formed a team tasked to conduct
the operation against alias "Amy" and cause her eventual arrest. PCI Meris was
designated Team Leader and PO2 Corpuz, SPO2 Agbayani and SPO1 Ventura were
tasked as arresting officers. On December 8, 2006, PO2 Corpuz called "Amy" and asked
her regarding their transaction as he was willing to buy "shabu" worth two thousand
pesos (PHP 2,000.00). "Amy" said she will deliver the shabu the following day, December
9, 2006 at 6:00 o'clock in the morning at the vicinity of the La Trinidad Trading Post. On
Dec. 9 around 4:30 Amy arrived and he was arrested after bringing with her a class A
Shabu and asking P2000 from the police poseur buyer.

PO2 Corpuz then got the sealed sachets and he turned over all the six sachets, the two
sachets sold to him and the four sachets which "Amy" brought out from her pocket, as
well as the cell phone to the team leader PCI Meris. PCI Meris then held on to the items
as they went to the La Trinidad Police Station. PCI Meris brought out the seized items
and directed his team members to put their initials on said items. When asked why the
initials were not indicated on the plastic sachets at the time of the arrest, PCI Meris
explained that Bayabas, La Trinidad, Benguet, is a notorious place based on his
personal knowledge as he grew up in La Trinidad, Benguet as well as based on statistics
of the PNP of La Trinidad, Benguet. Being a notorious place and fearing that the
accused may have some back-up, he deemed it best that the marking be done in
their office and so they left the place right after the arrest of the accused.

The accused Amy Dasigan now avers that the police failed to follow the chain of
custody rule as provided by paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA9165, when the
failed to mark on the spot the sachets of shabu thus compromising the integrity of the
corpus delicti, which is the drugs.

Issue: Whether the police substantially complied with the chain of custody rule.

Held: Yes. This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should
ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, "as it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain." The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Hence, the prosecution's failure to submit in evidence the
physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as required under Article 21 of R.
A. No. 9165, will not render the accused's arrest illegal or the items seized from him
inadmissible.[22]
The chain of custody is not established solely by compliance with the prescribed
physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of the
enumerated persons. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R. A. No. 9165 on the
handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs states:

x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable

grounds, as long as the integrity and 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.

As to the fact that the seized items were marked only at the police station and not
during the actual apprehension and seizure, in People v. Loks, we held that the marking
of the seized substance immediately upon arrival at the police station qualified as a
compliance with the marking requirement. Such can also be said here, especially in
view of the explanation of PCI Meris that the place of arrest had a notorious reputation
based on his personal knowledge as well as on police statistics, and that the arresting
officers deemed it best that they leave said place right after the arrest of the accused-
appellant for fear that the latter might have some back-up.

Clearly, there was no hiatus or confusion in the confiscation, handling, custody and
examination of the shabu. The shabu that was seized from accused-appellant, taken to
the PDEA Office and thereat duly marked, then taken to the crime laboratory and
subjected to a qualitative examination, and thereafter introduced in evidence against
accused-appellant was the same shabu confiscated from accused-appellant when
she was caught in flagrante delicto possessing the same.
 People v. Maongco
G.R. No. 196966 Oct. 23, 2013

Facts: Based on a tip from a confidential informant, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs of the
Navotas City Police conducted a special operation on June 18, 2004, which resulted in
the arrest of a certain Alvin Carpio (Carpio) for illegal possession of dangerous drugs
and seizure from Carpio’s possession of 15 heat-sealed plastic sachets containing
shabu. When questioned by the police, Carpio admitted that the shabu came from
accused-appellant Maongco. Consequently, the police planned an operation to
apprehend accused-appellant Maongco and formed a team for this purpose,
composed of PO1 Arugay, PO2 Ong, PO2 Geoffrey Huertas (Huertas), and PO1 Jesus
del Fierro (Del Fierro). On June 19, 2004, after coordination with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the police team was briefed about the operation. The
police team allowed Carpio to talk to accused-appellant Maongco on the cellphone
to arrange for a sale transaction of shabu. At around 10:30 in the morning, the police
team, accompanied and guided by Carpio, proceeded to the vicinity of Quezon
corner Roces Avenues in Quezon City frequented by accused-appellant Maongco.
PO1 Arugay, PO2 Ong, and Carpio rode a taxi, while PO1 Del Fierro and PO2 Huertas
followed in an owner-type jeep. Carpio spotted accused-appellant Maongco at a
waiting shed and pointed out the latter to the police. PO2 Arugay alighted from the
taxi and approached accused-appellant Maongco. PO2 Arugay introduced himself to
accused-appellant Maongco as Carpio’s cousin, and claimed that Carpio was sick
and could not be there personally. PO2 Arugay then asked from accused-appellant
Maongco for Carpio’s order of “dalawang bulto.” Accused-appellant Maongco drew
out from his pocket a sachet of shabu and showed it to PO2 Arugay. When PO2
Arugay got hold of the sachet of shabu, he immediately revealed that he was a police
officer, arrested accused-appellant Maongco, and apprised the latter of his
constitutional rights. When the police team questioned accused-appellant Maongco
as to the other “bulto” of shabu Carpio had ordered, accussed-appellant disclosed
that the same was in the possession of accused-appellant Bandali, who was then at
Jollibee Pantranco branch along Quezon Avenue. The police team, with Carpio and
accused-appellant Maongco, went to the said restaurant where accused-appellant
Maongco identified accused-appellant Bandali to the police team as the one wearing
a blue shirt. PO2 Ong approached accused-appellant Bandali and demanded from
the latter the other half of the drugs ordered. Accused-appellant Bandali voluntarily
handed over a sachet of shabu to PO2 Ong. Thereafter, PO2 Ong apprised accused-
appellant Bandali of his constitutional rights and arrested him. Afterwards, the police
team brought accused-appellants to the police station in Navotas City. At the police
station, PO1 Arugay marked the sachet of shabu from accused-appellant Maongco
with the initials “MMY,” while PO2 Ong marked the sachet of shabu from accused-
appellant Bandali with the initials “PBS.” PO1 Arugay and PO2 Ong turned over the two
sachets of shabu to the custody of PO1 Del Fierro and SPO1 Sugui. The sachets of
shabu were then inventoried, photographed in the presence of accused-appellants,
and submitted for laboratory examination.

Issue: 1) Whether the Maongco is guilty of illegal sale of prohibited drugs.

2) Whether Maongco is also guilty of illegal possession of prohibited drugs.
Held: 1) No, he was guilty of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs. In the case of accused-
appellant Maongco, the Court finds that the RTC and the Court of Appeals both erred
in convicting him in Criminal Case No. Q-04-127731 for the illegal sale of shabu under
Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. The evidence on record does not support
accused-appellant Maongco’s conviction for said crime, especially considering the
following answers of prosecution witness PO1 Arugay during the latter’s cross-
examination, practically admitting the lack of consideration/payment for the sachet of
shabu.
As for the illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, it must be proven that (1) the accused
passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by
any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly
made the delivery. Worthy of note is that the delivery may be committed even without
consideration. It is not disputed that accused-appellant Maongco, who was working
as a taxi driver at the time of his arrest,26 had no authority under the law to deliver any
dangerous drug. The existence of the two other elements was established by PO1
Arugay’s testimony.

2) Yes. Well-settled in jurisprudence that the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
necessarily includes the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.33 The same
ruling may also be applied to the other acts penalized under Article II, Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 because for the accused to be able to trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit, or transport any
dangerous drug, he must necessarily be in possession of said drugs.