Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Maria Aubrey B.

Villamor
PSC22
De La Salle University-Dasmarias
College of Liberal Arts
Social Sciences Department
G.R. No. 189806
People of the Philippines v. Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant: Francisco Manlangit y Tresballes
Date: January 12, 2010
Ponente: J. Mendoza Jr.
Facts:
1. November 24, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Court, the accused, not
being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there wilfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and
deliver aero point four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug.
2. November 24, 2003, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Court, the accused, not
being authorized by law to use dangerous drugs, and having been arrested and found positive for use of
Methylaphetamine, after a confirmatory test, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously use a
dangerous drug in violation of the said law.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the accused-appellant be convicted despite the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
2. Whether or not the findings in the procedure for the custody and control of prohibited drugs was complied with.
Held:
1. Yes. The accused-appellants guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt merely on the basis of punishing the act
of selling dangerous drugs [Sec.5 of RA 9165] and the use of dangerous drugs [Sec.15, RA 9165]. The pieces of
evidence found in the records demonstrate that all the elements of the crimes charged were satisfied. The lower
courts gave credence to the prosecutions witnesses testimonies, which established the guilt of the accused for the
crimes beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy
does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation.
2. No. the accused-appellant contends that the arresting officers did not comply with the requirements for the
handling of seized dangerous drugs as provided for under Sec.21 (1) of RA 9165 which states that 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. Though the
accused argued that there was no photograph made of plastic sheet in the presence of the accused, media, any
elected local official, or the DOJ Rep. in clear violation of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165, the court stated that noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void such seizures and
custody over said items. Therefore, the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the
required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal
and does not automatically render accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible.
Wherefore, the appeal is denied. CAs decision is affirmed in toto.

De La Salle University-Dasmarias
College of Liberal Arts
Social Sciences Department
G.R. No. 185211
People of the Philippines v. Arnel Bentacan Navarrete
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant: Arnel Benatcan Navarrete
Date: June 6, 2011
Ponente: J. Carpio Morales
Facts:
1. March 12, 2005, at about 4:15 PM in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable
Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent and without authority law, did then and there sell, deliver or give
away to poseur buyer (1) heat sealed transparent plastic packet of white crystalline substance weighing 0.05 gram,
locally known as shabu containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
2. Prosecution team namely Police Chief Inspector Mutchit Salinas, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory
in Cebu City, SPO1 Willard Selibio, Elmer Abelgas and PO2 Labiaga conducted a quick surveillance operation to
ascertain the veracity of report made by the informant. Then, they proceeded at 4:15 PM to Magsaysay St.,
Barangay Suba, Cebu City to conduct a buy-bust operation against the appellant.
3. The decision on March 28,2006 made by the trial court found the appellant guilty as charged and hereby
sentenced life imprisonments and pay fine of 500,000.00 Php.
4. Appellate court held there was a failure of the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph
of the seized drug. Therefore, it was not fatal to sustain a conviction. There, it noted that the appellant failed to
adduce evidence on the possible motive for the police officers to fabricate the charge against him. Hence, the
present appeal.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs during the buy-bust operation had
been followed or observed.
Held:
1. No. SPO1 Selibio claimed at the witness stand to have marked the sachet with ANB , not one of his team mates
related having seen him mark it. Therefore, there are serious doubts arise to whether the sachet and its contents
submitted for laboratory examination were the same as that claimed to have been taken from appellant. Thus,
under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, it is not always fatal as long as there is
justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items,
are properly preserved by the apprehending team. What is the utmost important is the preservation of the integrity
and the evidentiary value of the seized items. The apprehending team in the present case has not, however, shown
any justifiable ground to exempt it from complying with the legal requirements. Consequently, the appellants
contention that the apprehending police officers were gravely remiss in complying with the statutory requirements
imposed under Section 21 is thus well-taken.

Wherefore, the assailed decision of the CA is reversed and set aside. For failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, appellant, Arnel Bentacan Navarrete is acquitted of the crime charged.

De La Salle University-Dasmarias
College of Liberal Arts
Social Sciences Department
G.R. No. 192261
People of the Philippines v. Garet Salcena Y Victorino
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant: Garet Salcena Y Victorino
Date: November 16, 2011
Ponente: J. Mendoza
Facts:
1. An appeal from the February 9, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals ) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02894, which
affirmed the July 10, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103, Quezon City (RTC) Criminal Case
No. Q-05-134553, finding accused Garet Salcena y Victorino (Salcena) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and ordering her to
pay a fine of 500,000.00.
2. May 19, 2005, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, not
authorized by to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drugs, did then and there, wilfully
and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, 0.04 gram of
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
3. During the arraignment, Salcena and Armas entered a plea of not guilty. Whereas, the pre-trial was terminated,
trial on the merits ensued.
4. After presenting the versions made by the prosecution and defense, RTC rendered judgement convicting Salcena
for illegal sale of 0.04 gram of shabu. Trial court rejected the defences of denial and frame-up and accorded
weight and credence to the collective testimonies of the barangay tanods. Thus, under Section 5 of R.A 9165 (for
pushing shabu), she was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500,000.00 Php
On appeal, CA affirmed the conviction of the accused on the basis of the testimonies of Catubay and Esguerra
which it found credible and sufficient to sustain conviction. The CA was of the view that the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of the barangay tanods was not sufficiently controverted by
Salcena. It stated that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs as well as the identity of Salcena as its author. The appellate court rejected the defense of frame-up for her
failure to substantiate the same.
5. Moreover, the CA held that the apprehending team properly observed the procedure outlined by Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject shabu was duly preserved. The appellate
court also sustained the RTC in holding that Salcenas constitutional right to counsel was never impaired as she
was adequately represented and assisted by a counsel at all stages of the trial proceedings.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the trial court violated the accused-appellants constitutional right to counsel.
2. Whether or not the evidence provided against Salcena is sufficient enough for the affirmation of her conviction
for violation of Section 5, Article III R.A No. 9165.
Held:
1. Yes. The trial court violated the accused-appellants constitutional rights as the prosecution failed to present a
complete picture of buy-bust operation highlighted by the disharmony and inconsistencies in its evidence. The
court finds loose ends in the prosecution evidence, unsupported by coherent and rational amplification. Applying
the objective test and during cross-examination, what then happened to the entrapment team which was
supposedly formed for the purpose of arresting Salcena red-handedly, and whose members were named
enumerated in the pre-operation report remained a question. Confusions and uncertain statements presented by
prosecution were insufficient.
2. No. The foregoing conflicting narrations and improbabilities, seemingly trivial when viewed in isolation, cast
serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses when considered together. Unfortunately, they were
glossed over by the RTC and the CA invoking the presumption that barangay tanod Catubay and Esguerra were in

the regular performance of their bounden duties at the time of the incident. It should be stressed, however, that
while the court is mindful that the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their
duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it
cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The attendant circumstance negates the
presumption accorded to these prosecution witnesses. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering
exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated
illicit drug. Hence, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed.
Wherefore, the appeal is granted. The February 9, 2010 Decision of the CA in CA-GR CR-HC No. 02894 is hereby
reversed and set aside. Accordingly, accused Garet Salcena y Victorino is hereby acquitted of the crime charged against
her and ordered immediately released from custody, unless she is being held for some other lawful cause.