De Lima v.

Guerrero
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 the four consolidated criminal cases against the Petitioner.
Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, mainly raising the following: the allegations and the recitals of facts do
not allege the corpus delicti of the charge, the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged against petitioner
among others.
Respondent judge issued the presently assailed Order finding probable cause for the issuance of warrants of
arrest against De Lima and her co-accused. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON it is not indispensable for a Co-conspirator to take a direct part in every act of the crime.

HELD:
Yes. On the issue that it has not been alleged that petitioner actually participated in the actual trafficking of
dangerous drugs and had simply allowed the NBP inmates to do so is non sequitur given that the allegation of
conspiracy makes her liable for the acts of her co-conspirators. The Court elucidated, that it is not indispensable for a
co-conspirator to take a direct part in every act of the crime. A conspirator need not even know of all the parts which
the others have to perform, as conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony; it is not participation in all the
details of the execution of the crime. As long as the accused, in one way or another, helped and cooperated in the
consummation of a felony, she is liable as a co-principal. As the Information provides, De Lima's participation and
cooperation was instrumental in the trading of dangerous drugs by the NBP inmates. The minute details of this
participation and cooperation are matters of evidence that need not be specified in the Information but presented
and threshed out during trial.
Pp v. Romy Lim

FACTS:
On appeal is the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the Decision of Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Case Nos. 2010-1073 and 2010-1074, finding accused-appellant
Romy Lim y Miranda (Lim) guilty of violating Sections 11 and 5, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
With regard to the illegal possession of a sachet of shabu, the RTC held that the weight of evidence favors
the positive testimony of IO1 Orellan over the feeble and uncorroborated denial of Lim. As to the sale of shabu, it
ruled that the prosecution was able to establish the identity of the buyer, the seller, the money paid to the seller,
and the delivery of the shabu. The testimony of IO1 Carin was viewed as simple, straightforward and without any
hesitation or prevarication as she detailed in a credible manner the buy-bust transaction that occurred. Between the
two conflicting versions that are poles apart, the RTC found the prosecution evidence worthy of credence and no
reason to disbelieve in the absence of an iota of malice, ill-will, revenge or resentment preceding and pervading the
arrest of Lim. On the chain of custody of evidence, it was accepted with moral certainty that the PDEA operatives
were able to preserve the integrity and probative value of the seized items. CA affirmed the said decision of the RTC.
On the other hand, Lim maintains that the case records are bereft of evidence showing that the buy-bust
team followed the procedure mandated in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

ISSUE:
WON Lim should be acquitted based on reasonable doubt, for failure to comply with the procedure
mandated in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

HELD:
Yes. The Court stressed in People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro: The prosecution bears the burden of proving a
valid cause for noncompliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. Its failure
to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with
the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply
mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on
the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items.
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and
photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained.
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. In this case, the Court
has held that the justifications given by the investigating officers (witnesses) are unacceptable as there was no
genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the law.
It bears emphasis that the rule that strict adherence to the mandatory requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A.
No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR may be excused as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated items are properly preserved applies not just on arrest and/or seizure by reason of a legitimate buy-bust
operation.
Pp v. Tanes

FACTS:
An Information was filed against Tanes for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. Tanes pleaded not
guilty to the charge and then filed a Petition for Bail which was granted by the Trial Court. The RTC found that the
evidence of Tanes' guilt was not strong because there was doubt as to whether the chain of custody in the buy-bust
operation was preserved.
The RTC ruled that the failure of the prosecution to show that the three witnesses (i.e., media
representative, DOJ representative, elected official) were also present in the actual buy-bust operation and not only
during the inventory negated the requirement of strong evidence of the accused's guilt to justify a denial of bail.
Moreover, the RTC ruled that the defense correctly cited the case of People v. Jehar Reyes 12 (Jehar Reyes) in
support of its argument.

ISSUE:
WON non-compliance with the rules on chain of custody of illegal drugs negates a strong evidence of Tanes'
guilt.

HELD:
Yes. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.
Consequently, compliance with the rule on chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs is crucial in any prosecution
that follows a buy-bust operation. The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug recovered from
the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established
with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.
In the present case, it appears that the buy-bust team committed several procedural lapses concerning the
chain of custody of the seized drug. These lapses in the chain of custody created doubt as to the identity and
integrity of the seized drug. Consequently, the evidence as to Tanes' guilt cannot be characterized as strong.
The present ruling, however, should not prejudge the RTC's ruling on the merits of the case. Indeed, there
are instances when the Court had ruled that failure to strictly comply with the procedure in Section 21, Article II of
R.A. 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items void.
Malilin v. Pp
FACTS:

Police officers raided the residence of Junie Malillin y Lopez (petitioner). The search allegedly yielded two (2)
plastic sachets of shabu and five (5) empty plastic sachets containing residual morsels of the said substance.
Petitioner was charged with violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA No. 9165.
The evidence for the defense focused on the irregularity of the search and seizure conducted by the police
operatives. Petitioner testified that PO3 Esternon began the search of the bedroom with Licup and petitioner himself
inside.
The trial court declared petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. The trial court
reasoned that the fact that shabu was found in the house of petitioner was prima facie evidence of petitioner's
animus possidendi sufficient to convict him of the charge inasmuch as things which a person possesses or over which
he exercises acts of ownership are presumptively owned by him. It also noted petitioner's failure to ascribe ill
motives to the police officers to fabricate charges against him.

ISSUE:
WON a mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral
certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt.

HELD:
Yes. Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession
of a prohibited substance be established with moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized
by law. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital
to a judgment of conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug be
established beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a
reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the
fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must
also be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of
custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit
be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it
to be; The likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and
is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their
daily lives.
Pp v. Kamad
FACTS:

PNP Drug Enforcement Unit of Taguig police received information from an asset that a certain "Zaida" was
engaged in the illegal sale of shabu in Parañaque City. The Taguig police formed a buy-bust team composed of police
officers. One officer acted as poseur-buyer and received three (3) one hundred peso bills for use as marked money.
The buy-bust team took the accused-appellant and Leo and the recovered plastic sachets to their office for
investigation. The recovered plastic sachets were then brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for qualitative
examination; the tests yielded positive results for shabu. RTC rendered a guilty verdict which was affirmed in toto by
the CA.

ISSUE:
WON the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165
for the illegal sale of shabu.

HELD:
No. In People v. Garcia, The Court emphasized the prosecution’s duty to adduce evidence proving
compliance by the buy-bust team with the prescribed procedure laid down under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II
of RA 9165.
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug’s unique
characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution
either by accident or otherwise. Hence, the rules on the measures to be observed during and after the seizure,
during the custody and transfer of the drugs for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court.
The consequences of the omissions must necessarily be grave for the prosecution under the rule that penal
laws, such as RA 9165, are strictly construed against the government and liberally in favor of the accused. One
consequence is to produce doubts on the origins of the illegal drug presented in court, thus leading to the
prosecution’s failure to establish the corpus delicti. Unless excused by the saving mechanism, the acquittal of the
accused must follow.