G.R. No.

L-30635-6 January 29, 1976

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FELIPE RAMIREZ Y CAMATIS, defendant-

appellant.

FACTS:

This is appeal from a conviction of the accused Felipe Ramirez y Camatis for the crime of rape. He
received the penalty of reclusion perpetua twice for the two separate occasions where, as found by the
lower court, he employed force on a daughter of his common-law wife and thus succeeded in having
intercourse with her. There was no denial about the commission of such acts; his defense, however, was
that there was consent on her part, as indeed there had been previous instances where he had access to
her. In his brief, he did emphasize the weakness of the proof for the offended party. He could rely then on
the constitutional presumption of innocence, his guilt not having been shown beyond reasonable doubt.

When called to the stand, she testified that the first time she was raped was on the morning of September
29, 1967 when the accused, the common law husband of her mother, taking advantage of the fact that
she was alone in the house, suddenly embraced her, brought her inside the room, and then gagged her,
with a gun pointed at her. Thus he was able to have sexual intercourse with her. She admitted having
allowed the accused to take such liberty in these words: "I agreed because what can I do; I have already
fought back but I could do nothing. She added: "I fought back but I was overwhelmed," She used the
phrase, "talong-talo po ako." He left her right afterwards. Her mother arrived, but she did not report that
she was deflowered as she was afraid, the accused having warned her that should she "reveal the
matter, she would be killed as well as [her] brothers and sisters and [also] her mother." She further
testified that in well-nigh similar fashion, the language employed being almost Identical, the same act was
perpetrated by the accused on the morning of October 2, 1967. Again, she fought back but [she] was
overwhelmed." She gave birth to a child on May 22, 1968, seven months and twenty-five days after the
first sexual act.

ISSUE:

WON the accused can be held liable on the basis of qualified seduction.

RULING:

No. In People vs. Alvarez and People vs. Samillano, while appellants were acquitted, the commission of
the crime of rape not having been shown, this Court found them guilty of qualified seduction. Such a
result, regrettably, is not warranted here. The information was quite definite that this accused, "armed with
a deadly weapon, a firearm, and by means of violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have carnal knowledge of a fifteen-year old girl, one Felicisima
Briones Mendoza, ...." that finds application.

By reason of the intimacy and confidence existing among various members of a household, opportunities
for committing seduction are more frequent. However, the Court does not make any finding that he
committed qualified seduction. Since he was definitely and squarely charged with rape, he cannot be
convicted of qualified seduction. The complaint in this case is not susceptible of being construed as
charging qualified seduction. That charge does not include qualified seduction. Much less can qualified
seduction include rape. Hence, Castro cannot be convicted of qualified seduction under the rape charge
(See sees 4 and 5, Rule' 120, Rules of Court). The rape charge did not place him in jeopardy of being
convicted of qualified seduction.
G.R. No. 172116 October 30, 2006

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. ROGER VILLANUEVA, appellant.

FACTS:

That on or about the 9th day of July, 2002 in the Municipality of Navotas, Metro Manila Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a private person and
without authority of law, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver in
consideration of the amount of P100.00 to poseur buyer One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance with net weight 0.21 gram, which substance when subjected to
chemistry examination gave positive result for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known
"shabu", a regulated drug.

Denying the accusations against him, appellant testified that on the night of the alleged commission of the
crime, he was at home watching television. Thereafter, two policemen knocked at the door looking for a
certain person named Roger. When he identified himself as Roger, he was immediately handcuffed and
brought to the headquarters without explanation. It was only later that he found out that he was being
charged for selling shabu.9

After hearing, the trial court rendered its decision finding Villanueva guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
drug pushing, penalized under Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165 and he is hereby sentenced, in view of the
small quantity of shabu involved, to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of
Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:

WON the trial court erred in finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

No. In essence, what appellant puts at issue is the trial court’s appreciation of factual details of the buy-
bust operation or the entrapment. Settled is the policy of this Court, to sustain the factual findings of the
trial court in criminal cases, on the rational assumption that it is in a better position to assess the evidence
before it, having had the opportunity to make an honest determination of the witnesses’ deportment
during the trial. In the instant case, we find no basis to disregard the trial court’s factual findings.

In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt not only the
commission of the crime but likewise to establish, with the same quantum of proof, the identity of the
person or persons responsible therefor. This burden of proof does not shift to the defense but remains in
the prosecution throughout the trial. However, when the prosecution has succeeded in discharging the
burden of proof by presenting evidence sufficient to convince the court of the truth of the allegations in the
information or has established a prima facie case against the accused, the burden of evidence shifts to
the accused making it incumbent upon him to adduce evidence in order to meet and nullify, if not to
overthrow, that prima facie case.

To sustain a conviction under a single prosecution witness, such testimony needs only to establish
sufficiently: 1) the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment thereof. Indeed, what is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took
place, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence. In this case, PO1
Rana, being the poseur-buyer, was the most competent person to testify on the fact of sale and he did so
to the satisfaction of both the trial court and the appellate court. All told, the trial court and the Court of
Appeals correctly held that the appellant committed the crime charged.
G.R. No. 189841 December 15, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. EFREN DITONA y MONTEFALCON, BERNARD

FERNANDEZ and ERNESTO EMNAS, Accused.
EFREN DITONA y MONTEFALCON, Appellant.

FACTS:

On July 19, 2002, within the election period, the police conducted a buy-bust operation at the place.
SPO1 Alfredo Flores, acting as a poseur-buyer, and an informer met the accused Efren M. Ditona in front
of the latter’s house. SPO1 Flores gave Ditona the marked money consisting of two ₱100 bills in
exchange for one plastic sachet of shabu. PO3 Norberto Ventura and PO2 Allan Delos Reyes rushed
towards the gate of the compound to make the apprehension but, before they could reach SPO1 Flores
and Ditona, the latter noticed their movement and ran into his house. The officers arrested him there and
four others who were then sniffing shabu and preparing aluminum tin foils.

The police frisked them and found the marked money on Ditona’s person together with transparent plastic
sachets containing what appeared to be shabu substance and one cal. 22 magnum revolver with six live
ammunitions. They confiscated the marked money, the suspected shabu substance in sachets, the gun,
and the ammunitions. Upon laboratory examination, the substance proved positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu.

The RTC found Ditona guilty of all the charges and the CA affirmed the conviction for the crimes relating
to the prohibited drugs.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt Ditona’s guilt for illegal
possession and sale of shabu.

RULING:

To successfully prosecute an accused for selling illegal drugs, the prosecution has to prove: (1) the
identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment for it. On the other hand, for an accused to be convicted of possession of illegal
drugs, the prosecution is required to prove that: (1) the accused was in possession of prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
prohibited drug.

In both instances, the State has to prove as well the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. It must be
shown that the suspected substance the police officers seized from the accused is the same thing
presented in court during the trial. Thus, the chain of custody rule is essential to ensure that doubts
regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements
of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court. The
witnesses should be able to describe these movements to ensure that there had been no change in the
condition of the item and that no one who did not belong in the chain had access to the same.

Here, the prosecution dismally failed to prove the corpus delicti since there were substantial gaps in the
chain of custody of the seized drugs which raised doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in
court.

There is no room to apply the presumption of regularity in the police officers’ performance of official duty.
While the testimonies of the police officers who apprehended the accused are generally accorded full
faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly, such
presumption is effectively destroyed where the performance of their duties is tainted with failure to comply
with the prescribed procedure and guidelines.
G.R. No. 174097 July 21, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SONNY PADUA y REYES, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:

The facts gathered from the records are as follows:

Two separate informations dated August 19, 2002 were filed before the RTC against appellant for illegal
sale and possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

After trial, the court a quo found accused-appellant guilty as charged. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
findings and conclusion of the RTC. The appellate court ruled that the buy-bust operation conducted by
the police officers was proper and there was no irregularity in the conduct of the same.

Accused-appellant asserts that the police officers failed to account for the chain of custody of the seized
items alleged to be shabu. He questions the non-presentation as witness of the alleged investigator, the
officer on duty who received the specimen together with the request for laboratory examination from PO2
Aguilar. He maintains that the specimen, which PO2 Aguilar turned over to Forensic Chemist Rivera-
Dagasdas, may no longer be the same specimen taken from him by PO2 Aguilar.

ISSUE:

WON the accused-appellant is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt for failure of the prosecution to
establish the chain of custody of the specimen.

RULING:

No. Under Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165,
non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, 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 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 SPO2
Aguilar’s 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. The matter of
presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the
discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as
witnesses.

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.
As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and
that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and
every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.
G.R. No. 188900 March 5, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. FERNANDO HABANA y ORANTE, Appellant.

FACTS:

In the morning of July 17, 2003, members of the Anti-Illegal Drug Task Force Unit of the Caloocan City
Police Station met with an informant at Chowking Restaurant in Sangandaan, Caloocan City. The
informant told them that a certain Loloy, later on identified as the accused Habana, was selling shabu on
Salmon Street. Habana was arrested and found two more plastic sachets containing what appeared to be
shabu and the marked bills.The arresting officers handed over custody of his person and the items seized
from him to PO3 Fernando Moran, the investigator on duty, who placed his marking on them and
submitted the same to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for forensic examination

ISSUES:

1) WON the prosecution’s failure to present the forensic chemist and the police investigator assigned to
the case is fatal to its case against accused Habana.

2) WON the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the seized substance taken from Habana along
the chain of custody.

RULING:

1) No. no rule requires the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had
something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of prohibited drugs from him. The
discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the prosecutor.

The non-presentation of the informant cannot prejudice the prosecution’s theory of the case. His
testimony would merely be corroborative since police officers Paras and Tayag who witnessed everything
already testified. Besides, as a rule, it is rarely that the prosecutor would present the informant because of
the need to hide his identity and preserve his invaluable service to the police.

2) Yes. In all prosecutions for the violation of The Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the prohibited
drug has to be proved. The chain of custody rule requires that testimony be presented about every link in
the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. To this end, the
prosecution must ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the
accused.

While this Court recognizes substantial adherence to the requirements of R.A. 9165 and its implementing
rules and regulations, not perfect adherence, is what is demanded of police officers attending to drugs
cases,25 still, such officers must present justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. Here, however, they failed to
meet these conditions. The police officers offered no explanation for their failure to observe the chain of
custody rule.

The prosecution failed to show how the seized items changed hands, from when the police officers seized
them from Habana to the time they were presented in court as evidence. PO1 Paras said that he turned
over the sachets of shabu to the investigator on duty. But the prosecution did not adduce evidence on
what the investigator on duty did with the seized articles, how these got to the laboratory technician, and
how they were kept before being adduced in evidence at the trial.

Since the failure in this case to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs compromised
the identity and integrity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged
against Habana, his acquittal is in order.
G.R. No. 184761 September 8, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. JULIUS GADIANA y REPOLLO, Appellant.

FACTS:

At about 3:40 P.M. on February 7, 2004, while PO1 Busico, along with PO3 Dinauanao, PO2 Erwin
Ferrer, and three other police officers, was conducting saturation drive at Sitio San Roque, Barangay
Mambaling, Cebu City, he chanced upon appellant holding two small plastic sachets containing crystalline
substances which he was about to place inside his pocket. The policemen, identifying themselves as
such, apprehended appellant at once, confiscated the two sachets from his right hand, brought him with
the confiscated sachets to their office, and turned over the sachets to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory Service which found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated "that the Forensic Officer Jude Daniel Mendoza will testify, and
affirm and confirm his findings and conclusion within the four corners of his forensic report" with the
clarification that what was admitted was the "existence but not the source" of the two sachets.

The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City convicted appellant as charged. On appeal, the appellate court
affirmed that of the trial court’s but modified the penalty.

ISSUE:

WON the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

During the pre-trial, the "existence but not the source" of the two sachets was stipulated on by the parties.
It was thus incumbent on the prosecution to prove the chain of custody rule.

Chain of custody establishes the identity of the subject substance. It requires that testimony be presented
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item is seized up to the time it is offered in
evidence. When nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated is the same specimen examined
and established to be prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug.

Except for the charge sheet prepared against appellant which stated that evidence consisted of "two (2)
heat-sealed clear plastic sachets containing shabu with markings ‘JGR-1’ and ‘JGR-2,’" nowhere in the
record is a showing that the marking was done in the presence of appellant or his representatives or that
a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were taken as required under paragraph 1,
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 reading:

1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure
and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

Non-compliance with the above-quoted requirements does not of course necessarily render void and
invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs, provided that there are justifiable grounds to warrant
exception therefrom. The prosecution must, therefore, explain the reasons behind the procedural
lapses and must show that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had been preserved.
Parenthetically, appellant’s arrest, not to mention resulting confiscation of the alleged confiscation of the
plastic sachets of crystalline substances in his possession, leaves nagging doubts on its validity in light of
the fact that what PO1 Busico merely saw was appellant’s placing of the plastic sachets in his pocket
which, without more, does not justify his warrantless arrest under the Rules.
G.R. No. 190179 October 20, 2010

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWARD R. FELICIANO, ANITA G. LAURORA,

EDITHA C. MAGLALANG, MAY G. ESTRELLA, and ROMELITO G. RUELO, Accused, EDWARD R.
FELICIANO and ANITA G. LAURORA, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS:

On or about February 23, 2006 in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, conspiring, confederating together, and both of them
mutually helping and aiding one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,
deliver and give away to PO2 Badalf V. Monte, a police poseur buyer, one (1) pc. heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Aside from the
said act, the accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly use, smoke and ingest into his
body a methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and that this is the first offense of the
accused under Section 15 of the above-cited law, who after a confirmatory urine test, was found positive
to the test for methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

After trial, the RTC found all the accused guilty of the crime On appeal to the CA, accused-appellants
disputed the lower court’s decision finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
They argued that the lower court erred in admitting the seized dangerous drugs as evidence considering
that the arrest was unlawful. Further, they contend that the prosecution failed to establish every link in the
chain of custody of the drugs.

ISSUE:

WON the accused were unlawfully arrested.

RULING:

No. It is settled that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment that is resorted to for trapping and
capturing criminals. It is legal and has been proved to be an effective method of apprehending drug
peddlers, provided due regard to constitutional and legal safeguards is undertaken.

Clearly, in this case, the buy-bust operation was proper. All the essential elements of the crime of illegal
sale of drugs have been established, i.e., (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale,
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. What is material, is the
proof that the transaction or sale actually took place. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer
and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction.
G.R. No. 186467 July 13, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAIME GATLABAYAN Y BATARA, Accused-

Appellant.

FACTS:

That on or about the 10th day of September, 2002 in the Municipality of Rodriguez, Province of Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to
another person one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline
substance which gave positive result to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
and which substance produces a physiological action similar to amphetamine or other compound thereof
producing similar physiological effects.

The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, the CA affirmed the
conviction of the accused.

ISSUE:

WON the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of violation of Section 5, Article II,
R.A. 9165 despite the failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody of the illegal drug.

WON sufficient evidence exists to support the conviction of the accused for Section 5, Article II, R.A.
9165.

RULING:

Yes. Jurisprudence has firmly entrenched that in prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
following essential elements must be established: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and seller were identified. Implicit in
all these is the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug as evidence.

The narcotic substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence
is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is therefore of prime importance that the identity of the
dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise stated, it must be proven
with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in
evidence before the court. Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the offense must be established. The
chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed.

In People v. Kamad, the Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug
seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.

An examination of the case records show that while the identities of the seller and the buyer and the
consummation of the transaction involving the sale of illegal drug on September 10, 2002 have been
proven by the prosecution through the testimony of PO1 Antonio as corroborated by the testimony of PO1
Jiro III, the Court, nonetheless, finds the prosecution evidence to be deficient for failure to adequately
show the essential links in the chain of custody.

In view of the foregoing loopholes in the evidence adduced against the accused as well as the gaps in the
chain of custody, it can be reasonably concluded that the prosecution failed to convincingly establish the
identity and integrity of the dangerous drug.
G.R. No. 193234 October 19, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROBERTO MARTIN Y CASTANO, Accused-

Appellant.

FACTS:

That on or about November 6, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being
authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, or give away to another, any dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale ZERO POINT ZERO FIVE THREE (0.053) gram of
white crystalline substance known as shabu, containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride which is a
dangerous drug.

On 10 March 2008, the trial court issued its Decision and ruled that the accused is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

ISSUE:

WON the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

RULING:

No. Various irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the processing of the evidence in
the present case have left the case against the accused too weak to overcome the presumption of
innocence in his favor.

The first irregularity attaches to the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet, which is intended to show
the coordination between the PDEA and the police. Its importance lies in the fact that RA No. 9165
mandates close coordination between the Philippine National Police/National Bureau of Investigation and
the PDEA on all drug-related matters, including investigations on violations of RA No. 9165, with the
PDEA as the lead agency. In the case at bar, the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet is suspect as
it was apparently accomplished and sent to PDEA hours before the informant arrived to give the police
any information about the alleged illegal drug activity of Martin. SPO1 Mora variably testified that the
confidential informant came to their office at 5 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. of 6 November 2006. Meanwhile, from
the three faint stamps marked on the face of the Pre-Operation Report/Coordination Sheet, it was
received by PDEA-MMRO either at 1:30 p.m., 1:40 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. of 6 November 2006.

Second, the actual marked money was likewise not presented in evidence since SPO1 Mora could no
longer locate the marked money after he probably turned it over to the Investigator who photocopied
it. While the Court has also had occasion to hold that presentation of the buy-bust money, as a lone
defect, is not indispensable to the prosecution of a drug case, again it raises doubts regarding the
regularity of the buy-bust operation.

Third, the police officer did not comply with the procedure for seizure of evidence laid out in Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 and its corresponding Implementing Rules without giving any reasonable excuse for the
lapse. When confronted with the fact that they have not complied with the procedure for seizure of
evidence laid out in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165

Fourth, the prosecution failed to establish the "chain of custody" of the seized item. After the buy-bust
operation, the police officers proceeded to the DAID office where they turned over the sachet and
(probably) the marked money to the Investigator. It was this unidentified "investigator" who marked
the corpus delicti (plastic sachet) and who had custody of both the corpus delicti and the marked money.
Apparently, it was also he who turned over the plastic sachet to the Crime Laboratory for
testing. However, he was not presented to testify as to the marking of the sachet, the whereabouts of the
marked money and the completion of the chain of custody of the evidence from SPO1 Mora to the Crime
Laboratory.

Fifth, the presumption that the police officers regularly performed their duty cannot, standing alone, defeat
the presumption of innocence of the accused herein. Generally, law enforcers are presumed to have
regularly performed their duty, but this is a mere procedural presumption which cannot overturn the
constitutionally recognized presumption of innocence of the accused where lapses in the buy bust
operation are shown.

In view of the cited irregularities in the buy bust operation and the processing of the evidence shown in
the preceding discussion, the prosecution has fallen short of what is required for the conviction of the
accused.
G.R. No. 180504 October 5, 2011

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDWIN ULAT y AGUINALDO @

PUDONG, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS:

That on or about the 10th day of February 2003, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the necessary license
or prescription and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell, deliver and distribute Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing zero point
zero two (0.02) gram, in consideration of ₱100.00.

The trial court convicted appellant of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in its
Decision dated October 12, 2005. On review, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated May 30, 2007,
affirmed the ruling of the trial court.

ISSUE:

WON the trial court gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty with violation of Section 5, Article
II of R.A. 9165 despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the offense charged beyond reasonable
doubt.

RULING:

Yes. In the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the
following elements: "(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be
proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti
which means the "actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged."

A meticulous review of the records of this case has led the Court to the conclusion that the prosecution
failed to demonstrate with moral certainty that the identity and integrity of the prohibited drug, which
constitutes the corpus delicti, had been duly preserved. First, the records reveal that the prosecution did
not establish the exact location where the confiscated illegal drug was marked and the identity of the
person who marked it because of contradicting testimonies from the prosecution’s witnesses. Indubitably,
this conspicuous variance in the testimonies for the prosecution casts serious doubt on the arresting
team’s due care in the custody of the confiscated illegal drug.