PEOPLE v. EDGARDO FERMIN
The informant then introduced PO2 Ibasco to
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
For our review is the Decision[1] of the Special Fifteenth Division of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01852 dated 31 May 2007, convicting the herein
accused-appellants Edgardo Fermin y Gregorio and Job Madayag, Jr. y Balderas
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165.The dispositive portion of the assailed decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
103 in Criminal Case No. Q-03-119028, finding accused-appellants Edgardo Fermin
y Gregorio and Job Madayag, Jr. y Balderas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Article 5 [Section 5], Article II of R.A. 9165, and sentencing them to
suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENTand to pay a fine of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP 500, 000) each is AFFIRMED in toto.
The facts as presented by the prosecution follow:
At around 9 a.m. of 9 July 2003, a police informant went to La Loma Police Station
in Quezon City and reported that two (2) male persons are engaged in illegal sale of
drugs at No. 93 Iba St., Brgy. San Isidro, Quezon City. The two were eventually
identified as the herein accused Job B. Madayag, Jr. (Madayag, Jr.) alias Rolan and
Edgardo G. Fermin (Fermin) alias Jon-Jon. Acting upon the report, Station Chief
Police Senior Inspector Oliver M. Villanueva (Senior Inspector Villanueva) created a
team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of the police
members of the station namely, PO1 Roderick Valencia (PO1 Valencia), PO1 Albert
Mabutol (PO1 Mabutol), PO2 Ronald Pascua (PO2 Pascua), PO2 Edsel Ibasco (PO2
Ibasco) and one identified only as PO De Guzman. In their briefing, Senior Inspector
Villanueva gave each member of the team their respective assignments; PO2 Ibasco
will act as the poseur-buyer with the rest of the team completing the cast. Senior
Inspector Villanueva gave PO2 Ibasco one (1) One Hundred Peso Bill for use as
marked money. PO2 Ibasco, in turn, put his initial EI on the bill.[2]
At around 11 a.m. of the same day, the buy-bust team, together with Senior
Inspector Villanueva and the confidential informant, went to the target area of
operation at No. 93 Iba St., Brgy. San Isidro in Quezon City on board a Tamaraw
FX. PO2 Ibasco and the confidential informant proceeded to the area where they saw
the subject, Madayag, Jr., in front of the house. The rest of the team positioned
themselves, more or less ten to fifteen meters away from the location of PO2 Ibasco,
the informant and Madayag, Jr.
Madayag, Jr. as a drug-dependent who wanted to buy drugs. When Madayag, Jr.
asked for payment, PO2 Ibasco paid in the one-hundred-peso marked
money. Madayag, Jr. then called another person from inside the house. The man,
later identified as the co-accused Fermin, came out and gave three (3) plastic sachets
to Madayag, Jr. Madayag, Jr. turned again to PO2 Ibasco and showed him the three
(3) plastic sachets at his palm and told the poseur-buyer, Dahil kasama ka na namin,
mamili ka dito sa tatlo para makasigurado kang di ka talo, sisiguraduhin kong
babalik ka.[3] PO2 Ibasco then took one plastic sachet from Madayag Jr.s palm and
examined its content. Being convinced that the content was positive for shabu, PO2
Ibasco made the pre-arranged signal of scratching his head in order to alert the other
members of the buy-bust team. The members then immediately rushed to the
location and introduced themselves as police officers.
PO2 Ibasco testified in his Direct Examination[4] that PO2 Pascua got hold of
Fermin while PO1 Valencia got hold of Madayag, Jr. He added that PO2 Pascua was
able to recover the buy-bust money and plastic sachet from Fermin while PO1
Valencia recovered a bente nueve knife from Madayag, Jr. PO2 Ibasco added that the
plastic sachet which was the subject of illegal sale remained in his possession which
he marked EI-JM, while the rest were in the custody of PO2 Pascua. The buy-bust
team returned to the police station with the two (2) accused and all the [pieces of] of
evidence were turned over to the desk officer, and the desk officer turned them over
to the police investigator.[5]
PO2 Pascua affirmed in open court that he arrested and bodily frisked Fermin and
was able to recover one plastic sachet and one (1) .38 Paltik Revolver.[6] However,
he contradicted the previous statement of PO2 Ibasco that PO1 Valencia was the one
who got hold of Madayag, Jr. He testified that it was PO2 Ibasco who arrested
Madayag, Jr. and recovered from the latter the buy-bust money.[7] He contradicted
himself when, on the earlier part of his testimony he said that all the pieces of
evidence including the plastic sachet which was the subject of sale were in his
possession until they were turned over to the investigator,[8] he later testified that
PO2 Ibasco recovered one plastic sachet from Madayag, Jr. [9]
Nonetheless, the two police officers were one in testifying that a Joint Affidavit
about the conducted operation was executed by them at the police station. [10]
PO2 Ibasco identified the one (1) hundred peso bill with serial number ZT-427430
bearing his initial EI as the marked money used in the buy-bust operation.[11] PO2
Pascua, on the other hand, admitted that he put his initial RP-EF in all the plastic
sachets he recovered[12] and in the .38 paltik revolver.[13]
 The confiscated sachets of shabu were turned over to the Police Crime Laboratory at
Central Police District in Quezon City for examination.[14] Police Forensic Chemist
Officer Bernardino Banac, Jr. executed Chemistry Report No. D-605-03 finding the
submitted specimen positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.[15]
The factual version presented by the defense is:
Madayag, Jr. testified that before 12 noon of 9 July 2003, while he was buying some
cigarettes from a nearby store, he noticed that around eight (8) armed male persons
wearing civilian clothes, who turned out to be police officers, were in front of his
house located at No. 93 Iba St., Brgy. San Isidro, Quezon City. He approached them
to ask what they were looking for. However, instead of answering, two of the police
officers, one identified as PO1 Valencia, drew their firearms and poked them at
Madayag, Jr.s head.[16]One of them then pulled the accused inside the house. He was
then made to lie down on the cement floor of the veranda. The police officers entered
the house and when they came out after around ten minutes, the other accused
Fermin, who was then sleeping inside one of the bedrooms of the same house, and
his mother were brought to the veranda.[17] Fermin was also forced to lie down by the
police officers.[18] PO1 Valencia recovered a cigarette lighter from Madayag, Jr.,
which the police described as, eto ang gamit mo sa shabu.[19] The police then took
the two accused and Fermins mother to the police station where they were
detained.[20]
Fermin, the other accused, said his mother was later released because she paid the
police officers the amount of P11,000.00.[21] He added that they remained in
detention because they could not produce the additional demanded amount
of P14,000.00.[22]
Fermin corroborated the testimony of Madayag, Jr. in court. He said that at
around 11:00 a.m. of 9 July 2003, while he was sleeping, together with his nieces, at
one of the rooms of the house at No. 93 Iba St., Brgy. San Isidro, Quezon City,
police officers entered the room and grabbed him on his nape and arrested his
mother.[23] Then they were brought to the veranda of the house where he saw
Madayag, Jr. lying facedown on the floor.[24] He was ordered to lie down
by Valencia. He denied that a gun was taken from him or that he was called by
Madayag, Jr.[25] He further denied having given three (3) plastic sachets to Madayag,
Jr. or that he was frisked by the police for plastic sachets and money. [26]
Eventually, an Information was filed against Fermin alias Jon-Jon and Madayag,
Jr. alias Rolan dated 14 July 2003 which reads:
That on or about 9th day of July 2003, in Quezon city, Philippines, the said accused,
conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, not being
authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did,
then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or
act as a broker in the said transaction, zero point eleven (0.11) gram of white
crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.[27]
Upon arraignment, both the accused entered a plea of not guilty.
On 19 December 2005, the trial court found both the accused guilty of the crime
charged. The dispositive portion reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the court hereby finds accused Job
Madayag, Jr. y Balderas and accused Edgardo Fermin y Gregorio GUILTY as
conspirator of the crime of drug pushing and each is hereby sentenced to suffer Life
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000 each.
Upon appeal before the Court of Appeals, the accused in its Appellees Brief
assigned the following errors:[28]
1. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN FINDING THAT A BUY-BUST OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED
AGAINST APPELLANT AT ABOUT 11:30 OCLOCK IN THE MORNING
OF JULY 9, 2003 IN FRONT OF HOUSE NO. 93 IBA ST., BRGY. SAN
ISIDRO LABRADOR, QUEZON CITY.
2. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN FINDING APPELLANTS GUILTY AS CONSPIRATORS OF THE
CRIME OF DRUG PUSHING AND SENTENCING EACH TO SUFFER LIFE
IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY A FINE OF ₱500,000.00 EACH.
3. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE
ERROR IN FAILING TO ACQUIT APPELLANTS OF THE CHARGE ALLEGED
IN THE INFORMATION.
 In its Decision, the Court of Appeals agreed with the judgment of the trial court that
the two accused were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged against
him.[29]
The appellate court found that the testimonies of PO2 Ibasco and PO2 Pascua were
straightforward and candid as against the claim of alibi or frame-up and extortion of
the two accused. Further, the appellate court found no motive on the part of the
police officers to frame up both of the accused. Finally, it ruled against the alleged
lack of verisimilitude of the prosecutions version because the improbabilities,
inconsistencies contradictions and self-contradictions did not pertain to the actual
buy-bust itself but only to peripheral matters.
The Courts Ruling
The defenses main argument is whether or not there was really a buy-bust operation
on 9 July 2003. While we are not in total agreement with all the submissions of the
defense, this Court is reversing the ruling of the lower courts and now acquits the
two accused of the crime charged.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be
proven: (1) that the transaction or sale took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the
illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were
identified.[30] The presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial courts
finding of appellants guilt.[31] What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or
regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of
the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping
officers and the accused.[32] The presentation in court of the corpus delicti the body
or substance of the crime establishes the fact that a crime has actually been
committed.[33]
We have repeatedly held that the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of
witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed
on appeal.However, this is not a hard and fast rule. We have reviewed such factual
findings when there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or
misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have
affected the case.[34]
Cognate to this, while the entrenched rule is that the assessment of witnesses and
their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court which had the
opportunity to observe the demeanor, conduct or attitude of the witnesses, the
findings of the lower court on this point will be reversed on appeal, if it overlooked
substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the
result of the case.[35]
This Court believes that on application of the rule to the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses, the exception to the high value of the trial courts findings
surfaces. We find irreconcilable conflicts in the recollections about the
principal factum probandum which is the buy-bust itself. The varying versions about
the pre-operation, the illegal sale itself and the immediately preceding actions put
doubts about what really transpired on 9 July 2003.
PO2 Ibasco, in his testimony of 15 June 2004, stated that after the transaction, PO2
Pascua arrested Fermin and recovered the buy-bust money and the two plastic
sachets; while PO1 Valencia was the one who arrested Madayag, Jr. and recovered
from him a bente nueve knife.
Fiscal Araula: After giving the pre-arranged signal, what happened?
Ibasco: My companions rushed towards us and approached us sir.
Q: Now you said your companions approached the both accused at that time?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Who approached Fermin?
A: It was Ronald Pascua sir.
Q: How about Job Madayag?
A: It was Valencia sir.
Q: After your companion Pascua and Valencia arrested them, what happened next?
A: After the arrest, Pascua was able to get the buy-bust money and the plastic sachet
sir.
Q: From whom?
A: Fermin sir.
Q: How about from Madayag, was there anything recovered from him?
A: Knife bente nueve sir.
Q: How about the plastic sachet that you able to buy from him, where was it?
A: At that time I was holding it sir.
Q: You said Pascua arrested Fermin, he was able to recover the buy-bust money and
plastic sachets and from Madayag, Valencia recovered the bente nueve?
A: Yes sir.
Q: What bente nueve?
A: Balisong sir.[36]
However, PO2 Pascua in his 19 April 2004 testimony stated that it was PO2 Ibasco
who arrested Madayag, Jr. and recovered the buy-bust money while he, on the other
hand, arrested Fermin and recovered the .38 paltik revolver and two plastic sachets.

Fiscal Araula: When Ibasco made the pre-arranged signal what happened Mr.
Witness?
Pascua: When we saw Ibasco made the pre-arranged signal we rushed towards him.
Q: Were you able to approach them at that time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What happened when you rushed to the transaction?
A: We introduced ourselves as police officer and I got hold of Fermin, sir.
Q: How about Madayag, where was he when you got hold of Fermin?
A: Ibasco got hold of him, sir.
Q: When you got hold of accused Fermin, what happened?
A: After it bodily frisked.
Q: You frisked Fermin at that time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was the result?
A: We recovered one plastic sachet.
Q: From whom?
A: Fermin and one (1) .38 paltik Revolver, sir.
Q: How about Madayag, where was he when you frisked Fermin and got hold the
two plastic sachets and got one (1) .38 paltik?
A: I saw that the buy-bust money was recovered.
Q: Who recovered that buy-bust money?
A: Ibasco, sir.
Q: After you frisked Fermin and got two plastic sachets and paltik revolver and
Police Officer Ibasco recovered the buy-bust money which was held in possession of
Madayag, what happened after that?
A: We proceeded to the vehicle.[37]
There is another material contradiction. The testimony of PO2 Ibasco dated 7
December 2004 corroborated by PO2 Pascua in his 5 October 2004 testimony was
that coordination was made with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA). However, as per Certification of PDEA dated 26 July 2003,[38] none was
made. This was affirmed by Police Inspector Avelino Ecaldre [39] when he testified
that no coordination was made by the La Loma Police Station with the
PDEA.[40] This was viewed by the trial court as an administrative matter and not an
element of a valid entrapment. Nonetheless, the difference in the prosecution
testimonies is evident. And, evident too is the attempt to project regularity in the
buy-bust operation by the disputed testimony on coordination. These are what
matter.
Finally, PO2 Ibasco testified that the sachet which is the subject of the illegal sale
remained in his possession and was subsequently marked as EI-JM.[41] However,
PO2 Pascua, contradicted this statement when he testified on 19 April 2004 that the
sachet was in his possession. This contradiction will be underscored in the discussion
on the chain of custody of the corpus delicti.
The clear inconsistencies on important points cannot be disregarded where the issue
is ones liberty. The contradictory statements of the main prosecution witnesses need
not even be appreciated together with the defense position. The proof of the
supposed buy-bust operation rests exclusively on the prosecution.[42]
We now examine the chain of custody of the corpus delicti of this case. Section 21,
paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the custody and
disposition of the confiscated illegal drugs, to wit:
(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;
Further, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165,
provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/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; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; 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 x x x.
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedures is required because of the unique
characteristic of illegal drugs, rendering them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and
easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or
otherwise. Hence, we have 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.[43]
While Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act
No. 9165 excuses non-compliance with the afore-quoted procedure, the same holds
true only for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Here, the failure of the buy-
bust team to comply with the procedural requirements cannot be excused since there
was a break in the chain of custody of the substance taken from appellant. It should
be pointed out that the identity of the seized substance is established by showing
its chain of custody.[44]
The following are the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-
bust situation: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court.[45]
As provided by the implementing rules and jurisprudence, strict compliance of the
requisites under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 can be disregarded as long as
the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved; and its
preservation can be well established if the chain of custody of illegal drug was
unbroken. The break is clear in this case.
It must be noted that the police officer who had the initial custody and control of the
illegal drug was not clearly identified. In the preceding discussion on the
inconsistency in the statements of PO2 Ibasco and PO2 Pascua, it was pointed out
that PO2 Ibasco admitted that he was in possession of the confiscated drug, but this
was contradicted by PO2 Pascua who testified that he was the one who was in
possession of the illegal drug which was the subject of sale when it was brought to
the police station.
Fiscal Araula: After both accused were arrested and recovered buy-bust money and
two plastic sachet[s], in which you recovered from the accused, what happened next?
PO2 Ibasco: We turned over all the evidence to the desk officer and the desk officer
turned it to the police investigator for proper investigation sir.
xxxx
Fiscal Araula: All the recovered evidence that we recovered from the accused, can
you tell to this Honorable Court what are these?
PO2 Ibasco: The plastic sachet that I bought, paltik, two sachets, one bente nueve
and the buy-bust money sir.
Fiscal Araula: Who was in possession of the evidence when your group went to
the police station?
PO2 Ibasco: I was the one holding the plastic sachet what I was able to buy, my
companion was holding on the items that they recovered, sir. [46]
In his direct examination, PO2 Pascua testified differently:
Fiscal Araula: Now, who was in possession of that two plastic sachets and
the paltik revolver taken from Fermin at that time when you proceeded to La Loma
Police Station?
PO2 Pascua: I was in possession of that, together with the paltik, sir.
Fiscal Araula: How about the P100.00 bill and the plastic sachet which was the
subject of sell [sale], who was in possession?
PO2 Pascua: All of them were in my possession, sir.[47]
Additionally, no photograph was taken of the substance immediately after its
supposed seizure.
Atty. Madayag: When the alleged shabu was confiscated, was there any
photographs taken?
PO2 Pascua: No sir.
Atty. Madayag: That is in violation of Section 21 of [R.A. No.] 9165. So there was
no inventory and photographs?
PO2 Pascua: There was an inventory.
Atty. Madayag: On the night of the incident?
PO2 Pascua: All the evidences were turned over to Villanueva.
xxxx
Atty. Madayag: Where was the inventory made?
PO2 Pascua: At the office.
Atty. Madayag: At the office there was no photographing?
PO2 Pascua: None, sir.[48]
The fundamentals of a criminal prosecution were, indeed, disregarded. In
considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the laws own starting
perspective on the status of the accused in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed
innocent of the charged laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable
doubt.[49] The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of
innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. To repeat, the
prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the
defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the
defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. In which case,
the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted. [50]
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the two
accused. The rule that high respect must be accorded the lower courts in their
findings of facts cannot be misused to diminish the required evidence to overcome
the presumption of innocence of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 31 May 2007 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01852 in affirming the judgment of conviction
dated 19 December 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103 of Quezon City
in Criminal Case No. Q-03-119028 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accused-appellant Edgardo Fermin y Gregorio and Job Madayag,
Jr. y Balderas are hereby ACQUITTED and ordered immediately released from
detention unless their continued confinement is warranted from some other cause or
ground. SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE VS. SY CHUA [396 SCRA 657; G.R. No.136066-67; 4 Feb 2003]
Facts: Accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua was charged with violation of Section 16,
Article III of R.A. 6425, as amended by R.A. 7659, and for Illegal Possession of
Ammunitions and Illegal Possession of Drugs in two separate Informations.
SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag received a report from their confidential informant that
accused-appellant was about to deliver drugs that night at the Thunder Inn Hotel in
Balibago, Angeles City. So, the PNP Chief formed a team of operatives. The group
positioned themselves across McArthur Highway near Bali Hai Restaurant, fronting
the hotel. The other group acted as their back up.
Afterwards, their informer pointed to a car driven by accused-appellant which just
arrived and parked near the entrance of the hotel. After accused-appellant alighted
from the car carrying a sealed Zest-O juice box, SPO2 Nulud and PO2 Nunag
hurriedly accosted him and introduced themselves as police officers. As accused-
appellant pulled out his wallet, a small transparent plastic bag with
a crystalline substance protruded from his right back pocket. Forthwith, SPO2 Nulud
subjected him to a body search which yielded twenty (20) pieces of live .22
caliber firearm bullets from his left back pocket. When SPO2 Nunag peeked into the
contents of the Zest-O box, he saw that it contained a crystalline substance. SPO2
Nulud instantly confiscated the small transparent plastic bag, the Zest-O juice box,
the twenty (20) pieces of .22 caliber firearm bullets and the car used by accused-
appellant. SPO2 Nulud and the other police operatives who arrived at the scene
brought the confiscated items to the office of Col. Guttierez at the PNP Headquarters
in Camp Pepito, Angeles City.
Accused-appellant vehemently denied the accusation against him and narrated a
different version of the incident.
Accused-appellant alleged that he was driving the car of his wife to follow her and
his son to Manila. He felt sleepy, so he decided to take the old route along McArthur
Highway. He stopped in front of a small store near Thunder Inn Hotel to buy
cigarettes and candies. While at the store, he noticed a man approaches and examines
the inside of his car. When he called the attention of the onlooker, the man
immediately pulled out a .45 caliber gun and made him face his car with raised
hands. The man later on identified himself as a policeman. During the course of the
arrest, the policeman took out his wallet and instructed him to open his car. He
refused, so the policeman took his car keys and proceeded to search his car. At this
time, the police officer’s companions arrived at the scene in two cars. PO2 Nulud,
who just arrived at the scene, pulled him away from his car in a nearby bank, while
the others searched his car.
Thereafter, he was brought to a police station and was held inside a bathroom for
about fifteen minutes until Col. Guttierez arrived, who ordered his men to call the
media. In the presence of reporters, Col. Guttierez opened the box and accused-
appellant was made to hold the box while pictures were being taken.
The lower court acquitted Sy Chua for the Illegal Possession of Ammunitions, yet
convicted him for Illegal Possession of 1,955.815 grams of shabu. Hence, this appeal
to the Court.
Issues:
(1) Whether or Not the arrest of accused-appellant was lawful; and
(2) WON the search of his person and the subsequent confiscation of shabu allegedly
found on him were conducted in a lawful and valid manner.
Held: The lower court believed that since the police received information that the
accused will distribute illegal drugs that evening at the Thunder Inn Hotel and its
vicinities. The police officer had to act quickly and there was no more time to secure
a search warrant. The search is valid being akin to a “stop and frisk”.
The trial court confused the concepts of a “stop-and-frisk” and of a search incidental
to a lawful arrest. These two types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the
requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable
scope.
In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the
validity of the incidental search, the legality of the arrest is questioned, e.g., whether
an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a search. In this instance, the
law requires that there first be arrest before a search can be made—the process
cannot be reversed. Accordingly, for this exception to apply, two elements must
concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has
just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2)
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
We find the two aforementioned elements lacking in the case at bar. Accused-
appellant did not act in a suspicious manner. For all intents and purposes, there was
no overt manifestation that accused-appellant has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime. “Reliable information” alone, absent
any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the
view of the arresting officers, is not sufficient to constitute probable cause that would
justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
With regard to the concept of “stop-and frisk”: mere suspicion or a hunch will not
validate a “stop-and-frisk”. A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police
officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person
detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a “stop-and-frisk” serves a two-
fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection for
purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause;
and (2) the interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to
take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a
deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.
A stop-and-frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the
street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. It should also be
emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to
apply. The foregoing circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar. To reiterate,
accused-appellant was first arrested before the search and seizure of the alleged
illegal items found in his possession. The apprehending police operative failed to
make any initial inquiry into accused-appellant’s business in the vicinity or the
contents of the Zest-O juice box he was carrying. The apprehending police officers
only introduced themselves when they already had custody of accused-appellant.
In the case at bar, neither the in flagrante delicto nor the “stop and frisk” principles is
applicable to justify the warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure made
by the police operatives on accused-appellant.
Wherefore, accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua is hereby Acquitted.
Ruben Del Castillo vs. People of the Philippines
Facts:
Pursuant to a confidential information that petitioner Del Castillo was engaged in
selling shabu, police officers headed by SPO3 Bienvenido Masnayon, after
conducting surveillance and test-buy operation at the house of petitioner, secured a
search warrant from the RTC. Upon arrival to the residence of Del Castillo to
implement the search warrant, SPO3 Masnayon claimed that he saw petitioner run
towards a small structure, a nipa hut, in front of his house. Masnayon chased him but
to no avail, because he and his men were not familiar with the entrances and exits of
the place. They all went back to the residence of Del Castillo and requested his men
to get a barangay tanod and a few minutes thereafter, his men returned with two
barangay tanods who searched the house of petitioner including the nipa hut where
the petitioner allegedly ran for cover. His men who searched the residence of the
petitioner found nothing, but one of the barangay tanods was able to confiscate from
the nipa hut several articles, including four (4) plastic packs containing white
crystalline substance.
Thus, an information was filed against Del Castillo for violation of Section 16,
Article III of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the RTC and affirmed by the Court
of Appeals. Petitioner filed with the Supreme Court the petition for certiorari
contending among others that CA erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of illegal possession of prohibited drugs, because he could not be presumed to
be in possession of the same just because they were found inside the nipa hut.
Issue:
Can petitioner Del Castillo be held liable for violation of Section 16, Article III of
R.A. 6425 by mere presumption that the petitioner has dominion and control over the
place where the shabu was found?
Held:
No. While it is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be
owned by the person against whom the search warrant is issued, there must be
sufficient showing that the property is under petitioner’s control or possession. The
records are void of any evidence to show that petitioner owns the nipa hut in
question nor was it established that he used the said structure as a shop. The RTC, as
well as the CA, merely presumed that petitioner used the said structure due to the
presence of electrical materials, the petitioner being an electrician by profession.
The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence and
presence of the drugs in the place under his control and dominion and the character
of the drugs. With the prosecution’s failure to prove that the nipa hut was under
petitioner’s control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In
considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law’s own starting
perspective on the status of the accused — in all criminal prosecutions, he is
presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient
to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those
who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence.
DAVID v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 181861, October 17, 2011
FACTS: On June 29, 2003 at around 1PM the Intelligence Operative of Concepcion
Police Station, Concepcion, Tarlac descended upon L. Cortez St., Brgy. San Jose,
Concepcion, Tarlac to conduct a search with a warrant upon the house of Raul David
accompanied by Brgy. Captain Antonio Cannono and found six (6) sachets of
marijuana and three (3) plastic sachets of a substance identified as methamphetamine
HCL on top of a locked aparador. At the time the appellant was two meters away in
the sala, photographs of seized items were taken and inventoried and signed by Brgy.
Captain Cannono
Apellant was then charged with violation of Section 11, Art. II, of RA 9165
for illegally possessing 3.865 grams of marijuana and 0.327 grams of
methamphetamine HCL.
The RTC Branch 66, Capas, Tarlac sentenced the accused to imprisonment
of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP
300,000.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified
penalty to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum
and a fine of PHP 300,000 for the illegal possession of marijuana and imprisonment
of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years as maximum and a fine of PHP
300,000 for illegal possession of shabu.
ISSUE: Did the CA err in affirming with modifications the decision of the RTC?
RULING: No, the Court ruled that in all criminal prosecutions for possession of
dangerous drugs to prosper, the following elements must be present: (1) the offender
is in possession of an item or object that is prohibited or regulated, (2) that such
possession is no authorized by law and (3) that possession is freely and consciously
done. Such were present when PO3 Flores found the six sachets of marijuana and 3
sachets of shabu on top of the aparador and affirmed by Brgy. Captain Cannono
when he affixed his signature in the certificate of good search.
However, the Court applied the principle that penal statutes are construed in
favor of the accused against the state and so affirms the single penalty imposed by
the RTC and sets aside the modified penalty imposed by the CA, therefore, the
accused is sentenced to imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 14 years
as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000 for the illegal possession of marijuana and
shabu.
Petition is denied.
People v. Sabadlab
[G.R. No. 186392, January 18, 2012]
FACTS:An informant reported to PO3 Lowatonthat a certain "Bong" was engaged
in delivering and selling shabu. The informant said that he personally bought shabu
from said "Bong." A team composed was then formed to conduct a buy-bust
operation.Before alighting at the area of the operation, the informant told PO3
Lowaton that the person standing at the corner was their subject. The informant
introduced PO3 Lowaton to accused as the buyer. PO3 Lowaton said that he will
buy P300.00 worth. The accused took a plastic sachet from his pocket and gave it
to PO3 Lowaton. The latter handed in exchange P300.00. PO3 Lowaton reversed
his cap to signal the completion of the transaction. He thereafter introduced himself
as a police officer, arrested the accused-appellant.
Only the accused-appellant testified for the defense. He alleged that he
was arrested in front of his house while he was with his three children. Men in
civilian clothes alighted from their vehicle and were looking for a certain
"Minyong." When he told them that he does not know said person, they succeeded
in forcibly taking him and later he found out that he was being charged for drug
peddling.
ISSUE: Whether the lower court gravely erred in giving weight and credence to
the testimony of the prosecution and thereby finding accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violationof Sec. 5 and 11, Art. 2, R.A. 9165.
HELD: NO.Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the
buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly
performing their duty, their testimonies on the buy-bust operation deserve full faith
and credit. Settled is the rule that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers, for
they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there
is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill motive on the part of the police officers or
deviation from the regular performance of their duties.In the case at bar, accused-
appellant failed to prove his allegation of denial and frame-up by strong and
convincing evidence. He, in fact, presented no evidence to prove the same, and
instead relied on the alleged irregularity in the buy-bust operation.
In the case at bar, even if we assume for the sake of argument that
NarcisoSabadlab and accused-appellant Marcos Sabadlab y Narciso alias Bong
Pango could have been different persons, the established fact remains that it was
accused-appellant who was caught in flagrante delicto by the buy-bust team. Even
the lack of participation of PDEA would not make accused-appellant’s arrest
illegal or the evidence obtained pursuant thereto inadmissible.Neither is prior
surveillance a necessity for the validity of the buy-bust operation. Thus, in People
v. Padua, this Court held:A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity
of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or
textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police
carry out its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have
not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof.
The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the
need for prior surveillance.
People of the Philippines v. Benjamin Amansec y Dona
G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Amansec was charged with a violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002. The RTC
found Amansec guilty of violating Section 5 of RA 9165 or illegal sale of prohibited
drugs but was acquitted of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The
CA affirmed the decision of RTC.
Acting on a report by a confidential informant, PIO Villanueva formed a team for a
buy-bust operation against Amansec. PO1 Mabutol acted as the poseur-buyer with a
marked P100 peso bill. Mabutol and the informant moved ahead to the house of
Amansec while the rest of the team positioned themselves at a strategic location,
keeping Amansec within viewing distance. The informant then introduced Mabutol
to Amansec as a drug addict, in dire need of drugs. Mabutol had just told Amansec
that he was going to purchase one hundred pesos worth of shabu when another
buyer, later identified as Jerome Pintis, came up to Amansec to also buy shabu.
Amansec then showed both Pintis and Mabutol three plastic sachets containing
crystalline substance. Mabutol thereafter examined the plastic sachet he obtained
from Amansec, and suspecting it to be shabu, scratched the right side of his head
with his right hand to signal his team to approach the target. Pascua thereafter frisked
Amansec and retrieved the buy-bust money that Mabutol had given Amansec, and
another plastic sachet.
Accused-appellant questions the admissibility of the evidence against him for having
been obtained in violation of section 21 of RA 9165. Accused-appellant also
questions the non-inclusion of Pintis in the case and the non-presentation of the
informant in court. He also maintains that he is a victim of a frame-up as there was
no surveillance conducted prior to the buy-bust operation and that the marked money
used by PO1 Mabutol was not dusted with ultraviolet powder.
ISSUE:
Is the accused guilty of the crime of illegal sale of drugs punished under RA 9165?
HELD:
YES, the prosecution has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The acts of Pintis had nothing to do with Amansec’s own acts and the Court sees no
reason why the accused-appellant and Pintis should have been tried jointly. Further,
the presentation of an informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the
conviction nor is it indispensable for a successful prosecution because the
informant’s testimony is not needed if the sale of the illegal drug has been
adequately proven. In this case, the prosecution has successfully proven that an
illegal sale took place. Moreover, a prior surveillance is not required for a valid buy-
bust operation, especially if the buy-bust team is accompanied to the target area by
their informant, hence, accused-appellant’s contention that he was framed up due to
lack of surveillance must fail. Lastly, the failure of the police officers to use
ultraviolet powder on the buy-bust money is not an indication that the buy-bust
operation was a sham. In fact, the use of initials to mark the money used in the buy-
bust operation has been accepted by the Court in numerous cases.
Accused-appellant claims that Section 21 of RA 9165 was violated when the police
officers who arrested him did not take his picture with the shabu they confiscated
from him, and when they made no physical inventory of the shabu in his presence, or
in the presence of his representative, the media, the department of justice, or any
elected public official. Amansec avers that his presumption of innocence prevails
over the presumption that the police officers performed their duty in a regular
manner. He also avers that the prosecution failed to prove the chain of custody of the
evidence obtained from him as the station investigator.
A testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. Thus, even though the prosecution failed to
submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as
required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, this will not render Amansec’s
arrest illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible in evidence. The Court has
consistently held that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case, the prosecution was able to
demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been
preserved. The presumption that the integrity of the evidence has been preserved will
remain unless it can be shown that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering of the
evidence. Amansec failed to overcome his burden of showing the foregoing to
overcome the presumption that the police officers handled the seized drugs with
regularity, and that they properly discharged their duties.
It is evident in the case at bar that the prosecution was able to establish the elements
of illegal sale of drugs. As such, the accused is guilty of violating Section 5, Article
II of RA 9165.
PEOPLE VS DEQUINA
Facts: Accused Nelida Dequina was charged for violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, the pertinent facts of the case are as follows: P03 Masange along with
two other companions were given a tip that a huge amount of marijuana will be
delivered in the corner of Juan Luna and Rexabano Street in Tondo Manila. Being
given the description of the purported carriers, P03 Masange et al. proceeded to the
area and, a male and two females were seen getting off the taxi and carrying
individual black bags. The officers went to the individuals and the three began to
panic. One of them is accused Nelida Dequina who dropped the bag she was
carrying, causing the zipper to open and revealed what seemed to be bricks of
marijuana. The bags of her two other companion contained the same. Dequina raised
as a defense that she only did what she did because she was under the gun, that her
daughter was in the hands of the mastermind threatening her that something bad is to
happen to her daughter if she would not complete what she is asked to do.
The RTC convicted her party of the crime and was affirmed by the CA. Dequina and
party assail their conviction, asserting that their arrests were illegal. They were not
doing anything illegal that would have justified their warrantless arrest, much less a
warrantless search of their persons and belongings. A search made without a warrant
cannot be justified as an incident of arrest unless the arrest itself was lawful. The
People counters that accused-appellants’ arrests were lawful as they were then
actually committing a crime. Since accused-appellants were lawfully arrested, the
resulting warrantless search of their persons and belongings was also valid. In
addition, accused-appellants did not refute that they were indeed transporting
prohibited drugs when they were arrested and, instead, alleged as defenses that
Dequina acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear, and Jundoc and Jingabo
were merely accommodating a trusted childhood friend.
Issue: W/N the warrantless arrest of Dequina is valid.
Held: Yes. The party of Dequina was in inflagrante delicto at the time of the arrest.
Ratio: Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a lawful arrest
without a warrant may be made by a peace officer or a private person under the
following circumstances: 1. When the person to be arrested is in inflagrante delicto.
2. When the arresting officer is in hot pursuit. 3. When the person to be arrested is an
escapee.
“Transport” as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean “to carry or
convey from one place to another.” The evidence in this case shows that at the time
of their arrest, accused-appellants were caught in flagrante carrying/transporting
dried marijuana leaves in their traveling bags. PO3 Masanggue need not even open
Dequina’s traveling bag to determine its content because when the latter noticed the
police officers’ presence, she walked briskly away and in her hurry, accidentally
dropped her traveling bag, causing the zipper to open and exposed the dried
marijuana bricks therein. Since a crime was then actually being committed by the
accused-appellants, their warrantless arrest was legally justified, and the following
warrantless search of their traveling bags was allowable as incidental to their lawful
arrest.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. DANTE L. DUMALAG
DECISION
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
For review is the Decision1 dated July 3, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR.-H.C. No. 01847, which affirmed the Decision2 dated November 16, 2005 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, of Laoag City in Criminal Case Nos. 1683-
19 and 1684-19, tinding accused-appellant Dante L. Dumalag guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Informations against accused-appellant read:
Criminal Case No. 1683-19, for violation of Rep. Act No. 9165 (Possession)
That on or about 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon of January 5, 2005 at the Sexy Beach
Resort located at Brgy. Estancia, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody
three (3) heat sealed plastic sachets weighing 0.01 grams, 0.015 grams, and 0.04
grams respectively (sic) for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as
"shabu", without having the authority, license or prescription to do so. 3
Criminal Case No. 1684-19, for violation of Rep. Act No. 9165 (Sale)
That on or about 3:30 o’clock in the afternoon of January 5, 2005 at the Sexy Beach
Resort located at Brgy. Estancia, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) small heat sealed plastic sachet
containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, a regulated
drug, weighing 0.023 grams to a police poseur buyer in a buy bust operation without
the necessary license or authority to do so.4
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges when he was arraigned on June
14, 2005.5
During the preliminary conference on June 27, 2005, the parties made the following
admissions:
The defense admitted the following proposals of the prosecution:
1. The identity of the accused as the same Dante Dumalag also known as Dato
Dumalag who was arraigned in these cases.
2. That the accused is a resident of Brgy. 2, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte on or before
January 5, 2005.
3. That the accused was at the Sexy Beach [Resort] at Brgy. Estancia, Pasuquin,
Ilocos Norte in the afternoon of January 5, 2005.
4. That the prosecution witnesses namely: PO3 Rousel Albano, PO2 Danny Valdez,
SPO4 Angel Salvatierra and PO2 Harold Nicolas are members of the Special
Operations Group (SOG) on or before January 5, 2005.
5. That the accused is not authorized to sell neither to possess prohibited drugs
known as shabu.
For its part, the prosecution only admitted the proposal of the defense that the
accused and PO2 Danny Valdez are town mates.6
The defense made additional admissions during pre-trial on June 28, 2005, which the
RTC stated in its Order7 of even date:
Upon proposal of the Court, the defense admitted the existence of the initial
laboratory report, the confirmatory report and the result of the urine test issued by
Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Mary Ann Cayabyab (Cayabyab) which were marked
as Exhibits "I", "J" and "K", respectively.
The prosecution and the defense also agreed that before 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon
of the date of the incident, the accused had rented and was occupying room number 3
of the Resort Hotel and Restaurant located at Sexy Beach, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte.
Thereafter, the prosecution and defense considered the pre-trial closed and
terminated.
Thereafter, trial ensued.
The prosecution called Police Officer (PO) 3 Rousel Al Albano8 (Albano) and PO2
Danny U. Valdez9 (Valdez) to the witness stand, while dispensing with the testimony
of Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Mary Ann Cayabyab (Cayabyab) in view of the
stipulation of the parties as to the substance of her testimony.10 The prosecution
likewise submitted the following object and documentary evidence: (a) the Joint
Affidavit11 dated January 6, 2005 executed by the Special Operations Group (SOG)
members who conducted the buy-bust operation on January 5, 2005, including PO3
Albano and PO2 Valdez; (b) the Extracted Police Blotters12 dated January 6, 2005
which recorded the events prior to and after the buy-bust operation; (c) two pieces of
₱100.00 marked bills used in the buy-bust operation;13(d) the Request for Laboratory
Examination14 dated January 5, 2005 of one heat-sealed sachet marked "RA" and
three heat-sealed sachets marked "R" of suspected shabu confiscated from accused-
appellant; (e) Request for Drug Test Examination15 dated January 5, 2005 of
accused-appellant’s person; (f) one heat-sealed sachet of suspected shabu marked
"RA";16 (g) three heat-sealed sachets of suspected shabu marked "R";17 (h) PSI
Cayabyab’s Chemistry Report No. D-003-200518 dated January 5 and 6, 2005 stating
that the sachets submitted for examination tested positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride; (i) PSI Cayabyab’s Chemistry Report No. CDT-002-200519 dated
January 6, 2005 stating that accused-appellant’s urine sample tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride; (j) the Certification of Seized Items 20 dated
January 5, 2005 prepared by PO3 Albano and PO2 Valdez enumerating the items
seized from accused-appellant’s possession when arrested; (k) several pieces of
crumpled aluminum foils;21 (l) a purple disposable lighter;22 and (m) an empty
Winston cigarette pack.23
The prosecution’s version of events was presented by the RTC as follows:
At around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of January 5, 2005, a female police
informant from Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte went to the office of the Special Operations
Group (now Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Team or PAID-SOT)
located at Camp Juan, Laoag City and reported that a certain Dato Dumalag, a
known drug personality of Brgy. 2, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte was at Sexy Beach Resort
owned by Bebot Ferrer selling shabu to customers. Acting upon the report, PO3
Rousel Albano and PO2 Danny Valdez relayed the information to their team leader,
Police Inspector Rolando Battulayan, who then organized a team composed of PO3
Albano, PO2 Valdez, SPO4 Salvatierra and PO2 Harold Nicolas to conduct a buy
bust operation against the suspect. PO3 Albano was assigned to act as poseur buyer
while the rest of the team will act as perimeter back up. PO3 Albano was also tasked
to mark the two pieces of ₱100 bills provided by Inspector Battulayan to be used as
buy bust money and placed the letter "R" between the letters G and P of Republika
Ng Pilipinas on the face of the bills. The pre-operation activity was also recorded in
the police blotter. Afterwards, the team proceeded to the target place located in Brgy.
Estancia, Pasuquin at around 2:30 o’clock that same afternoon.
Upon reaching the place at around 3:00 o’clock, the police asked the caretaker of the
beach resort if a person is occupying Room 03 as reported by the asset. The caretaker
who was with another caretaker and both of whom were female gave them the
information that indeed a male person was occupying the said room. After they
prepared for the plan and have surveyed the area for five to seven minutes, they
proceeded with the drug bust. The members of the back up security positioned
themselves on the southern part of the alley about 15 meters away from Room 3
while PO3 Albano and the police asset went to the said room of the suspect which
was located at northernmost part of the main building of the resort. When they were
already at the door, the asset called out the name of the suspect Dato and PO3
Albano knocked at the door. After the asset also knocked at the door, a male person
peeped through and upon recognizing the police asset, Dato Dumalag told her,
"Mano Alaenyo, sumrek kay pay lang ngarud" (How much will you get, come in
then). As they were already inside the room, PO3 Albano told the suspect, "Balor
dos ti alaenmi" (We will get worth two). The suspect then went to the dresser located
on the southern part of the room and west of the door and took one small plastic
sachet and handed the same to PO3 Albano who immediately handed the two marked
₱100 bills. After the suspect had pocketed the money on his right front pocket, he
told them, "Rumaman kay pay ngarud tig-₱50.00 (Taste first, ₱50 worth for each of
you). At that instance, PO3 Albano gave the pre-arranged signal to the members of
the back up security that the sale was already consummated by pressing the button of
his cellphone to retrieve and call the last dialed number which was the cell number of
PO2 Valdez. After making the signal, PO3 Albano grabbed the right hand of the
suspect and informed him of his authority. The suspect scuffled with the police
officer who was however able to subdue him.
In the meantime, after PO2 Valdez received the miss call of PO3 Albano, he and his
companions rushed inside the room of the suspect. PO3 Albano had already
handcuffed the suspect by then and was holding him at that time. While PO3 Albano
frisked the accused where he confiscated a ₱50 bill in which three other sachets of
suspected shabu were inserted, PO2 Valdez searched the room and confiscated some
items which were on top of the dresser, such as five crumpled aluminum foil, stick of
cigarette, cigarette foil, a lighter and a cellphone. Afterwards, they brought the
suspect and the confiscated items to their headquarters in Laoag City where PO3
Albano marked the sachet of shabu bought from the suspect with his initials "RA".
He also marked the other three sachets and the ₱50 bill in which he found the said
sachets with the letter "R" on one side and the letters "DD" on the other side. He also
prepared the confiscation receipt which the accused signed and the post operation
report. On the other hand, PO2 Valdez marked the items that he confiscated with his
initials "DUV". They then brought the confiscated items for laboratory examination
together with a letter request.
Upon receipt of the specimens, the Forensic Chemical Officer of the Ilocos Norte
Provincial Crime Laboratory Office in Camp Juan, Police Senior Inspector Mary
Ann Cayabyab, examined the same. Particularly with respect to the four sachets, she
found the contents thereof to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. This is shown in
her Initial Laboratory Report as well as in her confirmatory report, Chemistry Report
No. D-003-2005. The said Forensic Chemical Officer also found the urine sample of
the accused positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride as shown in Chemistry
Report No. CDT-002-005.
It must be noted that in the course of his testimony, PO3 Albano identified their Joint
Affidavit of arrest, the extract of the police blotter showing the pre-operation
activity; the extract of the police blotter containing the post operations report, the
two pieces of ₱100 bills buy bust money bearing Serial Nos. *3664717 and
PG656160, the three plastic confiscated from the possession of the accused with the
marking letter "R" and "DD", the ₱50 bill in which the three sachets were
supposedly rolled, the plastic sachet containing crystalline substance that was sold by
the suspect and the Certification of Seized Items. In the case of PO2 Valdez, he
identified those that he confiscated: the five (5) pieces of crumpled aluminum foil,
the Nokia 3210 cellphone, the Winston cigarette pack, a stick of Winston cigarette
and a purple cigarette lighter. Both witnesses also identified the letter request for
laboratory examination and the letter request for urine examination. 24 (Citations
omitted.)
Evidence for the defense were the testimonies of accused-appellant Himself25 and
Kaichel Bolosan26 (Bolosan), and their respective Sworn Statements dated February
18, 2005.27 The defense averred that the police officers framed accused-appellant
after failing to extort money from him. The RTC summed up the defense’s evidence,
to wit:
That afternoon of January 5, 2005, Kaishel Bolosan was with his friends Nathaniel
Bolosan, Mark Milan, Jay Adaon and Benjie Galiza singing at a videoke
establishment located at the corner of the entrance of Sexy Beach. While the said
group was there, Dante or Dato Dumalag whom Kaishel had known because he
usually played billiards in his (accused’s) house at Brgy. 2, Pasuquin but with whom
he has not had any conversation before, passed by their place in a chop-chop
motorcycle. Dante Dumalag was then with a female companion. As soon as Dante
had parked his motorcycle, he and his female companion immediately went inside
the hotel. This, Kaishel and his companions did not mind as they kept on singing.
The caretaker and the cleaner of the hotel were there at that time when Dante
Dumalag entered the hotel. Thirty (30) minutes after Dante and his female
companion entered the hotel, six men arrived in a red pick up vehicle. Kaishel
Bolosan knew them to be policemen because he recognized one of them to be Danny
Valdez, a policeman who is a resident of Pasuquin and whom he usually saw in his
uniform flagging down a ride in going to Laoag City, arrived in a red pick up
vehicle. The police officers who were all male asked first the caretaker where the
room of Dante Dumalag was and after looking for it for about five (5) minutes,
Kaishel assumed that they entered the room of Dante because after they proceeded to
the back, he did not see them anymore. Two of the police officers, however,
remained at the side of the hotel, one of whom moved their pick up vehicle beside
the hotel.
In the meantime, as Dante Dumalag and his companion Irish Sao were already in the
hotel where they were supposed to rest, they rented a room, particularly Room No. 3.
When they were already inside, Dante Dumalag went to the bathroom to take a bath
while his lady companion lay on the bed. After taking a bath, Dante heard somebody
knocked at the door. Only wearing a short pants as he just came from the bathroom,
he went to open the door and as he did so, police officer Rousel Albano whose name
he came to know the following day, pushed the door, entered the room and pointed
his gun at him. At that time, Irish Sao was then in front of the mirror. Officer Albano
supposedly let Dante turn his back and without identifying himself and without
giving any reason why, he handcuffed the accused, made him lie on the bed face
down, placed a pillow on his head, pointed his gun at him and frisked him but did not
find any contraband. The accused was then made to stand up and it was at that
instance that the two policemen (including Danny Valdez) who followed Rousel
Albano inside the room let Irish Sao leave the room and without telling what they
were looking for, searched the room. They took his cellphone and that was the time
that the policemen also showed him two sachets of shabu. Dante Dumalag however
did not know from where they produced the shabu because he was made to bow his
head on the bed. After showing the shabu, Rousel Albano placed the barrel of his
gun inside the mouth of Dante Dumalag but removed it when one of his companions
told him that he might accidentally pull the trigger. Rousel Albano then told him that
they will just talk so that there will be no case. Dante Dumalag understood this to
mean that he has to settle the case by giving them money. When he did not accede,
Rousel Albano allegedly boxed and pushed him on the stomach, causing him to
stoop down. They then let him put on his sando and because he was in handcuffs,
Nicomedes or Medy Lasaten, a detainee who was with the policemen at that time,
helped him do so. The policemen then brought Dante Dumalag to the vehicle.
Before that, Kaishel Bolosan and his companions were still there at the video
establishment. After the lapse of 15 minutes from the time they entered the hotel,
Kaishel saw the four policemen re-appear and just stood by and afterwards, one of
them called him and his companions to board the chop chop motorcycle of the
accused in their pick up and after complying with the order of the policemen, they
were asked to leave. When they have already returned to the videoke bar, that was
the time that Kaishel saw Dante Dumalag brought out of the hotel by two policemen.
Dante Dumalag was then boarded at the back of the pick up where he was
sandwiched by three policemen while Danny Valdez was on the wheel and Irish Sao
was at the passenger seat in front. The other two policemen rode at the back of the
pick up. As the pick up left, it still stopped by the videoke bar where Danny Valdez
in a threatening tone told Kaishel and his companions not to say anything and that
they will arrest them all shabu users. At that time, Dante Dumalag did not see
Kaishel because he was made to bow his head in his seat. When the pick up moved
out of the place during which Kaishel allegedly saw Dante being boxed by one of the
policemen, they first dropped by the house of Danny Valdez where they took
something to cover the eyes of the accused, after which they proceeded to the
camp.28
On November 16, 2005, the RTC promulgated its Decision finding accused-
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felonies charged and decreeing thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Dante Dumalag
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged in Criminal Case No. 1683-19 for
illegal possession of shabu aggregately weighing 0.065 gram and is therefore
sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from
TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS and to pay a
fine of ₱400,000.00.
Said accused is likewise found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of
illegal sale of shabu in Criminal Case No. 1684-19 and is therefore sentenced to
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of ₱2,000,000.00.
The contraband subject of these cases are hereby confiscated, the same to be
disposed of as the law prescribes.29
In an Order30 dated December 2, 2005, the RTC gave due course to accused-
appellant’s Notice of Appeal and directed that the records of his cases be forwarded
to the Court of Appeals within the period prescribed by the rules. Accused-appellant
was then transferred to and committed at the New Bilibid Prison on December 5,
2005, pending his appeal.31
Accused-appellant insisted that he is innocent and that the charges against him were
merely fabricated. According to accused-appellant, the prosecution failed to establish
the factual details which led to his arrest.1âwphi1 Accused-appellant pointed out that
he was consistent in stating that at the time he was arrested, he had a female
companion with him, which was contrary to the police officers’ self-serving
testimonies that accused-appellant was alone when he was arrested; that the
prosecution failed to impeach the credibility of Bolosan who testified that there were
six men who arrived at the resort shortly before accused-appellant’s arrest, thereby
refuting the prosecution’s claim that the buy-bust team was composed of only four
male police officers, plus the female informant; and that there would have been no
doubt as to the existence of the female informant had the prosecution presented her
during the trial. Accused-appellant further argued that the police officers who
arrested him and purportedly confiscated the sachets of shabu from his possession
failed to strictly comply with the mandated procedure under Section 21 of Republic
Act No. 9165. The said provision of the law and jurisprudence on the matter require
that the marking of the drugs be done immediately after they are seized from the
accused; otherwise, reasonable doubt arises as to the authenticity of the seized drugs.
Accused-appellant claimed that the sachets of shabu supposedly seized from his
possession were marked when he was already at the police station and not at the
place of his arrest.
In its Decision dated July 3, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC
judgment of conviction.
Thus, accused-appellant instituted this appeal32 anchored on the following grounds:
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
PROSECUTION WAS ABLE TO PROVE THE GUILT OF THE APPELLANT
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT CONSIDERING THAT:
1. THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES ARE REPLETE
WITH SUBSTANTIAL OR SIGNIFICANT INCONSISTENCIES WHICH PROVE
THAT NO BUY BUST OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED.
2. THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROCEDURES IN
THE CUSTODY OF SEIZED PROHIBITED AND REGULATED DRUGS AS
EMBODIED IN SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165 WHICH RAISES
DOUBT WHETHER THE SHABU PRESENTED IN COURT IS THE SAME
FROM THE ONE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED FROM PETITIONER. 33
The appeal is bereft of merit.
Accused-appellant challenges the credence and weight accorded by both the RTC
and the Court of Appeals to the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution as
opposed to those of the defense.
It is an established rule that factual findings of the trial court, if supported by
evidence on record, and particularly when affirmed by the appellate court, are
binding on this Court, unless significant facts and circumstances were shown to have
been overlooked or disregarded which, if considered, would have altered the
outcome of the case. Moreover, questions as to credibility of a witness are matters
best left to the appreciation of the trial court because of its unique opportunity of
having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witness’
deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the
reviewing tribunal.34
Accused-appellant herein failed to present any cogent reason to disturb the factual
findings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals. The totality of the prosecution’s
evidence established a logical, vivid, and detailed account of the buy-bust operation
which ultimately led to accused-appellant’s arrest and the seizure of the plastic
sachets of shabu from his possession. The alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution
witnesses’ testimonies on the number and gender of the buy-bust team members are
trivial and irrelevant for it does not involve any of the necessary elements for
conviction of the accused-appellant for the illegal possession and sale of shabu.
For a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, it must be
shown that (a) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be
a prohibited or regulated drug; (b) such possession is not authorized by law; and (c)
the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 35
In the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following
elements must concur: (1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is
material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the
substance seized as evidence.36
In this case, prosecution witnesses, PO3 Albano and PO2 Valdez, categorically
stated under oath that as members of the buy-bust team, they caught accused-
appellant in flagrante delicto selling and possessing shabu. The prosecution was able
to establish that (a) accused-appellant had no authority to sell or to possess any
dangerous drugs; (b) during the buy-bust operation conducted by the police on
January 5, 2005 at the Sexy Beach Resort in Barangay Estancia, Pasuquin, Ilocos
Norte, accused-appellant sold and delivered to PO3 Albano, acting as a poseur-
buyer, for the price of Two Hundred Pesos (₱200.00), one heat-sealed plastic sachet
containing 0.023 grams of white crystalline substance, chemically confirmed to be
shabu; and (c) as a result of a search incidental to the valid warrantless arrest of
accused-appellant, he was caught in possession of three more heat-sealed plastic
sachets containing 0.01, 0.015, and 0.04 grams of white crystalline substance, all
chemically confirmed also to be shabu. The two marked One Hundred Peso
(₱100.00) bills used as buy-bust money, as well as the aforementioned sachets of
shabu were among the object evidence submitted by the prosecution to the RTC.
As for the non-presentation by the prosecution of the informant, this point need not
be belabored. The Court has time and again held that "the presentation of an
informant in an illegal drugs case is not essential for the conviction nor is it
indispensable for a successful prosecution because his testimony would be merely
corroborative and cumulative."37 The informant's testimony is not needed if the sale
of the illegal drug has been adequately proven by the prosecution. 38
In contrast, accused-appellant’s defense of frame-up was doubtful and
uncorroborated. The defenses of denial and frame-up have been invariably viewed
by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and
standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of Republic Act No. 9165. In
order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and
convincing evidence.39 In the instant case, accused-appellant failed to present, other
than his own testimony, sufficient evidence to support his claims. Bolosan did not
see and was not able to testify on the actual buy-bust operation, which took place
inside accused-appellant’s room at Sexy Beach Resort, as Bolosan only witnessed
the events taking place from outside the resort.
Furthermore, the Court finds that the chain of custody of the sachets of shabu seized
from accused-appellant had been duly established by the prosecution, in compliance
with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. As pertinently summarized by the Court
of Appeals, the prosecution had proven each and every link of the chain of custody
of the sachets of shabu from the time they were seized from accused-appellant, kept
in police custody then transferred to the laboratory for examination, and up to their
presentation in court, to wit:
It has been established that: after the police officers reached appellant’s room at the
Sexy Beach Resort, and PO3 Albano acted as poseur-buyer, he was handed one (1)
heat-sealed plastic sachet containing shabu. After accused was arrested, the police
officers were able to retrieve from appellant’s possession the marked money, as well
as three (3) other heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu. They brought
appellant to their office, together with the confiscated items, and prepared the
necessary documents for the filing of the cases against him. PO3 Albano and PO2
Valdez signed the Certification of Seized Items (Exhibit "L") dated 05 January 2005.
The team leader, Police Inspector Rolando Battulayan, prepared the Request for
Laboratory Examination (Exhibit "E") dated 05 January 2005 of said heat-sealed
plastic sachets containing alleged shabu, with the necessary markings on them, to
determine if said items contain methamphetamine hydrochloride. The one (1) heat-
sealed plastic sachet, subject of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, was marked with
letters "RA," while the three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets, subject of the illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, were marked with the letter
"R" on one side and "DD" (initials of appellant), on the other side. PO3 Albano was
the one who made said markings and delivered the same to the Ilocos Norte
Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, Camp Capt. Valentin. Based on the Chemistry
Report No. D-003-2005 (Initial Laboratory Report) dated 05 January 2005 (Exhibit
"I") and Chemistry Report No. D-003-2005 (Exhibit "J") dated 06 January 2005 of
Police Senior Inspector/Forensic Chemical Officer Mary Ann Nillo Cayabyab, the
four (4) specimens (A, B1, B2 and B3), upon qualitative examination, tested positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Even appellant’s urine
sample tested positive for methamphetamine, as stated in Chemistry Report No.
CDT-002-2005 (Exhibit "K").40 (Citations omitted.)
Accused-appellant’s insistence that the police officers broke the chain of custody
rule when they failed to mark the seized items immediately upon their confiscation at
the place where he was apprehended lacks legal basis.
It has already been settled that the failure of police officers to mark the items seized
from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon its confiscation at the place
of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody and
render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.41 In People v.
Resurreccion,42 the Court explained that "marking" of the seized items "immediately
after seizure and confiscation" may be undertaken at the police station rather than at
the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal
drugs cases. It was further emphasized that what is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The
Court elaborated in this wise:
Jurisprudence tells us that the failure to immediately mark seized drugs will not
automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody.
The failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21(1), Art. II of RA 9165 does not
necessarily render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from
him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
As we held in People v. Cortez, testimony about a perfect chain is not always the
standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.
Cognizant of this fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 on the
handling and disposition of seized dangerous drugs provides as follows:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/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; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police
station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; 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 x x x.
Accused-appellant broaches the view that SA Isidoro’s failure to mark the
confiscated shabu immediately after seizure creates a reasonable doubt as to the
drug’s identity. People v. Sanchez, however, explains that RA 9165 does not specify
a time frame for "immediate marking," or where said marking should be done:
What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly
specify is the matter of "marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to
ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to
inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station
rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule
requires that the "marking" of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the
same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence –
should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon
confiscation.
To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then, what is required is that
the marking be made in the presence of the accused and upon immediate
confiscation. "Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. Thus, in People v.
Gum-Oyen, testimony that included the marking of the seized items at the police
station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with
the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates
even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
team.43 (Emphases supplied, citations omitted.)
There is no question herein that the confiscated sachets of shabu and related
paraphernalia were inventoried and marked in the presence of accused-appellant at
the police station where he was brought right after his arrest.
Finally, the penalties imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
correct.
Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides that the penalty for illegal
possession of shabu, with a total weight of 0.065 grams, is twelve (12) years and one
(1) day to twenty (20) years, and a fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos
(₱300,000.00) to Four Hundred
Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00). Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the
accused shall be sentenced to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of
which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum term shall not
be less than the minimum prescribed by the same. Thus, in Criminal Case No. 1683-
19, the penalties imposed upon accused-appellant of imprisonment of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day, as the minimum term, to fifteen (15) years, as the maximum
term, and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱400,000.00), are in order.
The penalty for illegal sale of shabu (regardless of the quantity and purity involved),
under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, shall be life imprisonment to
death and a fine ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten
Million Pesos (₱10,000,000.00). Consequently, the Court upholds the sentence
imposed upon accused-appellant of life imprisonment and the order for him to pay a
fine of Two Million Pesos (₱2,000,000.00) in Criminal Case No. 1684-19.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appeal of accused-appellant Dante
L. Dumalag is DENIED and the Decision dated July 3, 2007 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01847 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE v. LAYLO
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
Before the Court is an appeal assailing the Decision1 dated 28 January 2010 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03631. The CA affirmed the
Decision2 dated 16 September 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67, in Criminal Case No. 06-017, convicting appellant
Rolando Laylo y Cepres (Laylo) of violation of Section 26(b), Article II (Attempted
Sale of Dangerous Drugs)3 of Republic Act No. 91654 (RA 9165) or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On 21 December 2005, two separate Informations against
appellant Laylo and Melitona Ritwal (Ritwal) were filed with the RTC
of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 06-017 and 06-
018, respectively. The information against Laylo states:
Criminal Case No. 06-017
That on or about the 17th day of December, 2005, in the Municipality of Binangonan,
Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell any dangerous drug,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly attempt to sell, deliver, and
give away shabu to PO1 Angelito G. Reyes, 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance
contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets which were found
positive to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a
dangerous drug, thus commencing the commission of the crime of illegal sale but did
not perform all the acts of execution which would produce such crime by reason of
some cause or accident other than the accuseds own spontaneous desistance, that is,
said PO1 Angelito G. Reyes introduced himself as policeman, arrested the accused
and confiscated the two (2) above-mentioned sachets from the latter.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. Joint trial on the merits ensued.
However, during the trial, Ritwal jumped bail and was tried in absentia.
Thus, Ritwal was deemed to have waived the presentation of her evidence and the
case was submitted for decision without any evidence on her part.
The prosecution presented two witnesses: Police Officer 1 (PO1) Angelito G. Reyes
(PO1 Reyes) and PO1 Gem A. Pastor (PO1 Pastor), the poseur-buyers in the
attempted sale of illegal drugs.
The prosecution summed up its version of the facts: In the afternoon of 17
December 2005, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor, both wearing civilian clothes, were
conducting anti-drug surveillance operations
at Lozana Street, Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal. While the police officers were in
front of a sari-sari store at around 5:40 p.m., appellant Laylo and his live-in
partner, Ritwal, approached them and asked, Gusto mong umiskor ng shabu? PO1
Reyes replied, Bakit mayroon ka ba? Laylo then brought out two plastic bags
containing shabu and told the police officers, Dos (P200.00) ang isa. Upon hearing
this, the police officers introduced themselves as cops. PO1 Reyes immediately
arrested Laylo. Ritwal, on the other, tried to get away but PO1 Pastor caught up with
her. PO1 Pastor then frisked Ritwal and found another sachet of shabu in a SIM card
case which Ritwal was carrying.
PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor marked the three plastic sachets of shabu recovered
from Laylo and Ritwal and forwarded them to the Philippine National Police Crime
Laboratory for forensic testing. Forensic Chemist Police
Inspector Yehla C. Manaog conducted the laboratory examination on the specimens
submitted and found the recovered items positive
for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.
The police officers charged Laylo for attempted sale of illegal drugs and used the
two plastic sachets containing shabu as basis while Ritwal was charged for
possession of illegal drugs using as basis the third sachet containing 0.02 grams
of shabu.
The defense, on the other hand, presented different versions of the facts. The
witnesses presented were: appellant Laylo; Laylos three neighbors namely
Rodrigo Panaon, Jr., Marlon de Leon, and Teresita Marquez.
Laylo testified that while he and his common-law wife, Ritwal, were walking on the
street, two men grabbed them. The two men, who they later identified as PO1 Reyes
and PO1 Pastor, dragged them to their house. Once inside, the police officers placed
two plastic sachets in each of their pockets. Afterwards, they were brought to the
police station where, despite protests and claims that the drugs were planted on them,
they were arrested and charged.
To corroborate Laylos testimony, the defense presented Laylos three neighbors.
Marlon de Leon (de Leon), also a close friend of the couple, testified that he was
taking care of the Laylo and Ritwals child when he heard a commotion. He saw men,
whom de Leon identified as assets, holding the couple and claimed that he saw one
of them put something, which he described as plastic, in the left side
of Laylos jacket.
Rodrigo Panaon, Jr. (Panaon) narrated that on 17 December 2005, at around 5:00 or
6:00 p.m., he was on his way home when he saw Laylo arguing with three men in an
alley. He overheard Laylo uttering, Bakit ba? Bakit ba? Later, Panaon saw a
commotion taking place at Laylos backyard. The three men arrested Laylo while the
latter shouted, Mga kapitbahay,tulungan ninyo kami, kamiy dinadampot.
Then Panaon saw someone place something inside the jacket of Laylo as he
heard Laylo say, Wala kayong makukuha dito.
Teresita Marquez (Marquez) testified that while she was fetching water from the
well on 17 December 2005, at around 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., she heard Laylos son
shouting, Amang, Amang. Marquez then saw the child run to his father, who was
with several male companions. Then someone pulled Laylos collar and frisked him.
Marquez overheard someone uttering, Wala po, wala po. Marquez went home after
the incident. At around 9:00 in the evening, Ritwals daughter visited her and
borrowed money for Laylo and Ritwals release. Marquez then
accompanied Ritwals daughter to the municipal hall, where a man
demanded P40,000.00 for the couples release.
In its Decision dated 16 September 2008, the RTC found Laylo and Ritwal guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violations of RA 9165. The RTC gave credence to the
testimonies of the police officers, who were presumed to have performed their duties
in a regular manner. The RTC stated that Reyes and Pastor were straightforward and
candid in their testimonies and unshaken by cross-examination. Their testimonies
were unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in their material points. The RTC
added that the denial of appellant Laylo is weak and self-serving and his allegation
of planting of evidence or frame-up can be easily concocted. Thus, Laylos defense
cannot be given credence over the positive and clear testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. The dispositive portion of the decision states:
We thus find accused Rolando Laylo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 26(b) of R.A. No. 9165 and sentence him to suffer a penalty of life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. We also find
accused Melitona Ritwal GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11
of R.A. No. 9165 and illegally possessing a total of 0.02 grams
of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and accordingly sentence her to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and one day as minimum to 13 years as
maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Let the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition. Furnish PDEA with a copy of this Decision
per OCA Circular No. 70-2007.
SO ORDERED.6
Laylo filed an appeal with the CA. Laylo imputed the following errors on the RTC:
I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE
PROSECUTION WITNESS PATENTLY FABRICATED ACCOUNTS.
II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED WHEN HIS GUILT
WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE APPREHENDING OFFICERS
FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE ALLEGED SEIZED
SHABU.7
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In a Decision dated 28 January 2010, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The
dispositive portion of the decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The challenged decision of the court a quo is AFFIRMED. Costs against the
accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED.8
Hence, this appeal.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal lacks merit.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the
identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery
of the thing sold and the payment.9
 In the present case, PO1 Reyes narrated in court the circumstances of the illegal PROS. ARAGONES:
sale: Q: Mr. Witness, while you were conducting surveillance on December 17, 2005,
what happened?
PROS. ARAGONES: A: While we were conducting surveillance
Q: What time did you proceed to that place of surveillance? at Lozana Street, Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal, while we were at the store, two (2)
A: 5:40 p.m., Maam. persons approached us, one male and one female, Maam.

Q: And what happened when you and PO1 Gem Pastor went there? Q: Who were those persons? Did you come to know the name of those persons?
A: When we were making standby at a nearby store there was a man talking with a A: At that time I dont know the names but when they were brought to the police
woman, the man asked me if we want to have a shot of shabu. station I came to know their names, Maam.

Q: What was your reply? Q: What are the names of these two persons?
A: Bakit, meron ka ba? A: Rolando Laylo and Melitona Ritwal, Maam.

Q: How did that other person react to that question, what did he tell you, if any? Q: At that time they approached you during the time you were conducting
A: Gusto mong umiskor ng shabu? surveillance at Lozana Street, what happened?
A: The male person approached PO1 Reyes and asked if iiskor, Maam.
Q: What happened after that?
A: I replied, Bakit meron ka ba? then he showed me two small plastic bags Q: What was the reply of PO1 Reyes?
containing shabu, Maam. A: He answered Bakit meron ka ba?

Q: How big is that bag, Mr. Witness? Q: When that answer was given by Reyes, what did that male person do?
A: Small, Maam. A: He produced two (2) small plastic sachets containing allegedly shabu and he
said dos ang isa.
Q: Can you tell us the size?
A: (Demonstrating) Almost one inch the size of a cigarette, Maam. COURT: What do you mean by dos ang isa?
A: Php 200.00, Your Honor.
COURT: It was in a plastic not in foil?
A: Yes, your Honor. PROS. ARAGONES:
Q: Where were you when that male person produced two (2) small plastic sachets?
PROS. ARAGONES: A: I was beside PO1 Reyes, Maam.
Q: After showing you two plastic bags, what happened?
A: I introduced myself as a police officer then I caught this man and confiscated the Q: After he showed the plastic sachets containing drugs, what happened next?
two small plastic bag containing shabu. A: We introduced ourselves as policemen, Maam.

Q: How about the lady?
A: My partner caught the woman because she was intending to run away and he got
from her right hand Smart SIM card case containing one small plastic. 10
PO1 Pastor corroborated the testimony of PO1 Reyes:
Q: After you introduced yourselves, what happened next?
A: PO1 Reyes arrested the male person while I arrested the female person, Maam.
Q: Why did you arrest the woman?
A: At that time, she was about to run I confiscated from her a SIM card case, Maam.

COURT: What was the contents of the SIM card case?
A: One (1) piece of alleged shabu, Your Honor.11
From the testimonies given, PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor testified that they were the
poseur-buyers in the sale. Both positively identified appellant as the seller of the
substance contained in plastic sachets which were found to be positive for shabu.
The same plastic sachets were likewise identified by the prosecution witnesses when
presented in court. Even the consideration of P200.00 for each sachet had been made
known by appellant to the police officers. However, the sale was interrupted when
the police officers introduced themselves as cops and immediately arrested appellant
and his live-in partner Ritwal. Thus, the sale was not consummated but merely
attempted. Thus, appellant was charged with attempted sale of dangerous drugs.
Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165 provides:
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the
following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the
commission of the same as provided under this Act:
xxx
They are viewed by the Court with disfavor, for such defenses can easily be
concocted and fabricated.
Appellant asserts that it is unbelievable that he would be so foolish and reckless to
offer to sell shabu to strangers. In People v. de Guzman,14 we have ruled that
peddlers of illicit drugs have been known, with ever increasing casualness and
recklessness, to offer and sell their wares for the right price to anybody, be they
strangers or not. What matters is not the existing familiarity between the buyer and
the seller, or the time and venue of the sale, but the fact of agreement as well as the
act constituting the sale and delivery of the prohibited drugs.
Further, appellant did not attribute any ill-motive on the part of the police officers.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers official duties
should prevail over the self-serving denial of appellant.15
In sum, we see no reason to disturb the findings of the RTC and CA. Appellant was
correctly found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 26(b),
Article II of RA 9165.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the appeal. We AFFIRM the Decision dated 28
January 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03631.

(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and SO ORDERED.

transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical;

xxx

Here, appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission
of the intended crime by showing the substance to PO1 Reyes and PO1 Pastor. 12 The
sale was aborted when the police officers identified themselves and placed appellant
and Ritwal under arrest. From the testimonies of the witnesses, the prosecution was
able to establish that there was an attempt to sell shabu. In addition, the plastic
sachets were presented in court as evidence of corpus delicti. Thus, the elements of
the crime charged were sufficiently established by evidence.

Appellant claims that he was a victim of a frame up. However, he failed to

substantiate his claim. The witnesses presented by the defense were not able to
positively affirm that illegal drugs were planted on appellant by the police officers
when they testified that they saw someone place something inside appellants
jacket. In Quinicot v. People,13 we held that allegations of frame-up and extortion by
police officers are common and standard defenses in most dangerous drugs cases.