Sale of Illegal Drugs

G.R. 181250 July 18, 2012

People v. Quindao
Facts: On 28 August 2002, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents Federico Criste,
Gregorio Zuniga, Jr., Winmar Louie de Ramos received a briefing from their team leader, Rosauro
Bautista about a buy bust operation that would be conducted that afternoon in Mandaluyong City.
They were to proceed to McDonald’s at Vargas St., Mandaluyong City, at the back of Shoemart
(SM) Megamall. SA Gregorio S. Zuñiga was to act as poseur buyer who would buy more or less
200 pieces of ecstacy pills worth P80,000.00 from a certain Inday. Early that morning, Forensic
Chemist Emilia A. Rosaldez dusted with fluorescent powder the two (2) P100 bills which were
placed on top of the two (2) sets of boodle money to be used for the buy bust. She also wrote down
the serial numbers of the P100 bills, V059146 and FU239560.
Around 5 o’clock in the afternoon, the group proceeded to Mcdonald’s at Vargas St., Mandaluyong
City and parked their vehicle 15 to 20 meters away from their target. Winmar U. De Ramos acted
as a perimeter guard while Federico O. Criste and SI Divinagracia were designated as arresting
officers. Zuniga, Jr., the poseur buyer met the informant who informed him that the deal was made.
They then proceeded to the second floor of Mcdonald’s and when they got there, a woman, three
(3) meters away from them, waved them. The informant with Zuniga approached the woman, and
when they got near her, the woman handed a box similar to that of a cough syrup paper box to the
man seated beside her. The man then handed to Zuniga the white box which was 3 inches tall by
1 ½ to 2 inches in diameter, while Zuniga handed to the man two stacks of boodle money.
Thereafter, Zuniga introduced himself as an NBI agent, and after apprising the two of their
constitutional rights, arrested the woman and the man, who turned out to be a appellants Emmalyn
Dela Cerna y Quidao a.k.a. “Inday” and Regie Mendenceles, respectively.
For their part, appellants vehemently denied the charges leveled against them. According to the
appellant DE LA CERNA, while they were eating at McDonald’s at St. Francis Branch, they were
approached by about ten (10) persons who frisked and brought them to the NBI office. One of the
agents showed her medicine tablets from the table and placed fluorescent powder on her two palms,
then she was placed in such a way that her feet were near on electrical wire, for five (5) minutes,
during which, she was hurt.
Further, appellant Medenceles stated that these agents placed a plastic bag on his head, and despite
the fact that no items was recovered from him, the present case was filed against him. He did not
file a case against the agents who hurt him as they threatened him.
Issue: Medenceles contends that the CA erred in convicting him of the charge because he was
implicated only because he was in the company of Dela Cerna during the buy-bust; and insists that
a real drug pusher would not approach just anyone in order to sell drugs.
Held: To obtain a conviction for the illegal sale of a dangerous drug, like ecstacy, the State must
prove the following, namely: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and
the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is decisive
is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus
delicti as evidence.
The State convincingly and competently established the foregoing elements of the offense charged.
Although the law punishes the unauthorized sale of dangerous drugs, such as ecstasy, regardless
of quantity and purity, with life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from P500,000.00 to P
1 0,000,000.00, the CA properly corrected the penalty prescribed by the RTC in view of the
intervening effectivity of Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty
in the Philippines. The retroactive application of Republic Act No. 9346 is already settled.

Chain of Custody
G.R. 173794 July 18, 2012
People v. Relato
Facts: That on or about the 29th day of August, 2002 at about 11:00 o’clock in the evening, in
Barangay Aquino, Municipality of Bulan, Province of Sorsogon, Philippines, and within the said
accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell, dispense and deliver to a
PNP asset disguised as poseur buyer, two (2) plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride
“shabu” weighing 0.0991 gram, for and in consideration of the sum of five hundred pesos (Php
500.00 ), the serial number of which was previously noted, without having been previously
authorized by law to sell or deliver the same.
Issue: Whether or not the Section 21(a) of IRR was violated.
Held: While the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving mechanism to ensure
that not every case of noncompliance irreversibly prejudices the State’s evidence, it is significant
to note that the application of the saving mechanism to a situation is expressly conditioned upon
the State rendering an explanation of the lapse or lapses in the compliance with the procedures.
Here, however, the Prosecution tendered no explanation why the buybust team had failed to mark
the seized shabu immediately after the arrest. Nevertheless, even assuming that marking the shabu
at the scene of the crime by the buy bust team had not been practical or possible for the buybust
team to do, the saving mechanism would still not be applicable due to the lack of a credible
showing of any effort undertaken by the buy bust team to keep the shabu intact while in transit to
the police station.
The procedural lapses committed by the buybust team underscored the uncertainty about the
identity and integrity of the shabu admitted as evidence against the accused. They highlighted the
failure of the Prosecution to establish the chain of custody, by which the incriminating evidence
would have been authenticated. An unavoidable consequence of the no establishment of the chain
of custody was the serious doubt on whether the shabu presented as evidence was really the shabu
supposedly seized from Relato.
 Forcible Abduction and Rape
G.R. 175924 March 12, 2014
People v. Sabadlab
Facts: AAA was then walking at around noon of March 12, 2002 on Dapitan Street in Makati City,
proceeding towards MA Montessori to fetch her employers’ son who was studying there.
Suddenly, a man (later identified as Sabadlab) grabbed her by the shoulder and ordered her to go
with him. She recognized him to be the man who had persistently greeted her every time she had
bought pandesal at 5 oclock am near her employers’ house in the past two weeks. Alarmed, she
refused to do his bidding, but Sabadlab poked a gun at her throat. Two other men whom she did
not recognize joined Sabadlab at that point. They forced her into the backseat of a parked car, and
one of Sabadlabs cohorts blindfolded her with a handkerchief. The car moved forward, and stopped
after twenty minutes of travel. Still blindfolded, she was brought out of the car. Sabadlab said that
he would remove her clothes. Sabadlab then undressed her, leaving only the blindfold on her. One
of them tied her hands behind her back. Sabadlab began kissing her body from the neck
downwards.
Although blindfolded, she knew that it was Sabadlab because his cohorts were calling out his name
as he was kissing her body. Then they made her lie flat on the ground with her hands still tied
behind her back. Sabadlab raped her in that position. The others took their turns in raping her after
Sabadlab. To prevent her from shouting for help, Sabadlab stuffed her mouth with crumpled
newspapers. The three ravished her again and again, that she could not remember the number of
times they did so.
At around 3:00 oclock pm, Sabadlab and his cohorts returned a blindfolded AAA by car back to
Dapitan Street, but let her go only after sternly warning that they would surely kill her if she told
anyone about the rapes. Once they left, she proceeded to MA Montessori to fetch her ward. She
waited there until 5:30 pm.
Upon her arrival at the house, AAAs employer noticed the kiss marks on her neck. AAA at first
lied about the kiss marks, but she ultimately disclosed the rapes because her irritated employer
slapped and boxed her on the stomach to force her to disclose.
On March 13, 2002, her employer brought AAA to the Makati Police Station to report the rapes.
AAA underwent medico legal examination later that day at the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp
Crame Quezon City.
Issue: Whether or not the accused, Sabadlab is guilty of the crime of forcible abduction with rape.
Held: First of all, Sabadlab continues to assail the credibility of AAAs recollections. We
understand why he does so, because the credibility of the victims testimony is a primordial
consideration in rape. Yet, because both the RTC and the CA unanimously regarded AAA as a
credible and spontaneous witness, he has now to present clear and persuasive reasons to convince
us to reverse both lower courts determination of credibility and to resolve the appeal his way.
Secondly, AAAs recollection of the principal occurrence and her positive identification of the
rapists, particularly Sabadlab, were firm. It is reassuring, too, that her trustworthiness in identifying
Sabadlab as one of the rapists rested on her recognition of him as the man who had frequently
flirted with her at the store where she had usually bought pandesal for her employers table. As
such, the identification of him as one of the rapists became impervious to doubt.
Thirdly, AAAs failure to shout for help and her failure to escape were not factors that should
diminish credibility due to their being plausibly explained, the first by the fact that her mouth had
been stuffed by Sabadlab with crumpled newspaper, preventing her from making any outcry, and
the second by the fact that the culprits had blindfolded her and had also tied her hands behind her
back.
Lastly, Sabadlabs allegation that AAA did not sustain any bodily injuries was actually contrary to
the medical certification showing her several physical injuries and the penetration of her female
organ. This should debunk without difficulty his submission that she did not offer any resistance
to the sexual assaults she suffered. Her resistance to Sabadlabs order for her to go with him was
immediately stifled by his poking of the gun at her throat and by appearance of his two cohorts.
At any rate, it is notable that among the amendments of the law on rape introduced under Republic
Act No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Act of 1997) is Section 266D, which adverts to the degree of
resistance that the victim may put up against the rapist.
The principal objective of Sabadlab and his two cohorts in abducting AAA from Dapitan Street
and in bringing her to another place was to rape and ravish her. This objective became evident
from the successive acts of Sabadlab immediately after she had alighted from the car in completely
undressing her as to expose her whole body (except the eyes due to the blindfold), in kissing her
body from the neck down, and in having carnal knowledge of her (in that order). Although forcible
abduction was seemingly committed, we cannot hold him guilty of the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape when the objective of the abduction was to commit the rape. Under the
circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible abduction.

Illegal Sale and Use of Illegal Drugs

G.R. 177320 February 12, 2012
People v. Santos
Facts: That on or about the 25th day of April 2003 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila , the accused,
without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
his possession, custody and control and that he was arrested in a buybust operation where he had
six (6) pieces of plastic sachets containing shabu weighing 0.05 gram, 0.09 gram, 0.05 gram, 0.09
gram, 0.07 gram & 0.06 gram knowing the same to be dangerous drug under the provisions of the
abovecited law.
Issue: Whether or not Santos is guilty of the crime of illegal sale and the use of illegal drugs.
Ruling: In drug related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements
of the offenses of sale and possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165, but also of proving
the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance
of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed.
As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular
crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two (2) things, viz: the existence
of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal
agency as the cause of this act or result.[The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the
violation of the law prohibiting the possession of the dangerous drug.
Consequently, the State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving corpus
delicti when the drug is missing, and when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the
seized drugs as to raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.
Although the penalty thus imposed is within the range of the penalty imposable under Republic
Act No. 9165, the increment of one day as part of the minimum of the indeterminate sentence is
deleted despite its being within the parameters of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The One day
increment to the minimum of the indeterminate sentence was surplus usage that may occasion a
slight degree of inconvenience when it will be time for the penal administrators concerned to pass
upon and determine whether or not Bautista is already qualified to enjoy the benefits under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law and other relevant legal provisions.

Rape
G.R. 181544 April 11, 2012
People v. Taguilid
Facts: That on or about the 29th day of May, 2002, in Quezon City, Philippines, the accused, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of force and intimidation suddenly
entered the bedroom of private complainant, a minor, 12 yrs of age, located at xxx Brgy. Talayan,
this City, and once inside, pushed said complainant to lie down, forcibly inserted his finger to her
private part, removed her panty and thereafter had sexual intercourse with said offended party, all
against her will, and without her consent, which acts further debase, degrade and demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of said private complainant as a human being, to her damage and
prejudice.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape.
Held: First of all, it is basic that findings of the CA affirming those of the RTC as the trial court
are generally conclusive on the Court which is not a trier of facts.
Secondly, the medicolegal finding made on May 29, 2002 showing AAAs hymenal laceration as
deephealed and as having healed 5 to 10 days from the time of (infliction of) the injury did not
detract from the commission of the rape on May 29, 2002.
Thirdly, AAAs failure to shout for help although she knew that her father was tending to the family
store just downstairs was not a factor to discredit her or to diminish the credibility of her evidence
on the rape.
Fourthly, Taguilid’s defense at the trial was plain denial of the positive assertions made against
him. He then declared that the charge of rape against him resulted from BBBs misunderstanding
of what had really occurred in AAAs bedroom just before BBB had appeared unannounced. Yet,
such denial was devoid of persuasion due to its being easily and conveniently resorted to, and due
to denial being generally weaker than and not prevailing over the positive assertions of both AAA
and BBB.
The Court is not surprised that Taguilid changed his defense theory on appeal, from one of denial
based on the charge having resulted from a misunderstanding of the situation in AAAs bedroom
on the part of BBB to one admitting the sexual congress with AAA but insisting that it was
consensual between them. Such shift, which the CA unfailingly noted, revealed the unreliability
of his denial, if not also its inanity.