PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs JULIET PANCHO, Accused-Appellant

Facts: That on or about the 14th day of September, 2005, at about 2:40 p.m., more or less, in the City of
Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate
intent, did then and there have in her possession and under her control three (3) heat-sealed transparent
plastic bags each of white crystalline substance weighing 14.49 grams locally known as shabu, containing
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without authority of law. On arraignment, accusedappellant entered a non-guilty plea. Trial ensued. The prosecution witnesses narrated that on the basis of a
search warrant, members of the Criminal Investigation and Intelligence Bureau of Cebu City conducted a
search in the house of accused-appellant and her husband Samuel Pancho located in Sitio Plastikan,
Barangay Duljo-Fatima, Cebu City. Police Superintendent Pablo Labra served the search warrant on accusedappellant. Police Officer 1 Roy Carlo Veloso (PO1 Veloso) was designated as the searcher, while PO2 Benigno
Andrew Ilagan (PO2 Ilagan) was assigned as the recorder of the raiding team. The raiding team was
accompanied by three barangay tanods. The search yielded three big plastic packets of
suspected shabu weighing a total of 14.49 grams, which were recovered under a jewelry box placed on top
of a cabinet divider. PO1 Veloso handed the packets of shabu to PO2 Ilagan who recorded them in the
confiscation receipt and made markings on the plastic packets. Accused-appellant denied the charge against
her and alleged that she was sewing a blanket in her bedroom on the second floor when two police officers
barged into her room and ordered her to go down. When she went down, two other police officers came and
one of them went up to the bedroom. After a few seconds, the said police officer went back down and called
the barangay tanods. When the barangay tanods arrived, accused-appellant was handcuffed and brought to
the police station. Accused-appellant later learned that she was being charged with illegal possession
of shabu. On 5 October 2009, the RTC rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of illegal
possession of shabu and sentencing her to life imprisonment and to pay a P1, 000,000.00 fine.
Issue: Whether accused-appellant's guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt is the crux of this
controversy.
Held: It was actually accused-appellant's lawyer who asked if the markings were done at the office, and PO1
Veloso inadvertently answered in the affirmative, but he immediately corrected himself when the mistake
was pointed out to him.
The non-presentation of the barangay tanods is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The more relevant
testimonies are those of the members of the raiding team who testified that they recovered packets
of shabu from accused-appellant's house.
With respect to non-compliance with procedure laid down in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, the
primordial consideration is the preservation of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited
drugs, to wit:

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:
(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[.]
Accused-appellant cites as an irregularity the failure of the prosecution to present photographs of the seized
items and that there were no representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) during
the conduct of the inventory of the seized items.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 (a) of R.A. No. 9165 offer some flexibility when a
proviso added that "non-compliance 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 and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items."
The failure of the members of the raiding team to deliver the seized items to the judge who issued the
warrant becomes immaterial because records show that the chain of custody is intact.
Accused-appellant was caught in possession of 14.49 grams of shabu or methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The illegal possession of dangerous drugs is punishable under Section 11, paragraph 2(1), Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, as follows:

(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10)
grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams[.]
We affirm the penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. It was specified in the Information that
the shabu found in the possession of the accused-appellant weighted 14.49 grams. This weight is as certified
to in the Chemistry Report. Such weight is within the range stated for by law.

RIZALDY SANCHEZ Y CAJILI, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

Facts: Around 2:50 pm of March 19, 2003, acting on the information that Jacinta Marciano, aka Intang,
was selling drugs to tricycle drivers, SPO1 Elmer Amposta, together with CSU Edmundo Hernandez, CSU
Jose Tagle, Jr., and CSU Samuel Monzon, was dispatched to Barangay Alapan 1-B, Imus, Cavite to conduct
an operation. While at the place, the group waited for a tricycle going to, and coming from, the house of
Jacinta. After a few minutes, they spotted a tricycle carrying Rizaldy Sanchez coming out of the house. The
group chased the tricycle. After catching up with it, they requested Rizaldy to alight. It was then that they
noticed Rizaldy holding a match box. SPO1 Amposta asked Rizaldy if he could see the contents of the match
box. Rizaldy agreed. While examining it, SPO1 Amposta found a small transparent plastic sachet which
contained a white crystalline substance. Suspecting that the substance was a regulated drug, the group
accosted Rizaldy and the tricycle driver. The group brought the two to the police station. On 24 February
2005, the accused Rizaldy Sanchez took the witness stand. He testified that on the date and time in
question, he, together with a certain Darwin Reyes, was on their way home from Brgy. Alapan, Imus, Cavite,
where they transported a passenger, when their way was blocked by four (4) armed men riding an ownertype jeepney. Without a word, the four men frisked him and Darwin. He protested and asked what offense
they committed. The arresting officers told him that they had just bought drugs from Alapan. He reasoned
out that he merely transported a passenger there but the policemen still accosted him and he was brought
to the Imus Police Station where he was further investigated. The police officer, however, let Darwin Reyes
go. On cross-examination, the accused admitted that it was the first time that he saw the police officers at
the time he was arrested. He also disclosed that he was previously charged with the same offense before
Branch 90 of this court which was already dismissed, and that the police officers who testified in the said
case are not the same as those involved in this case. On April 21, 2005, the RTC rendered its decision
finding that Sanchez was caught in flagrante delicto, in actual possession of shabu. It stated that the police
operatives had reasonable ground to believe that Sanchez was in possession of the said dangerous drug and
such suspicion was confirmed when the match box Sanchez was carrying was found to contain shabu. The
RTC lent credence to the testimony of prosecution witness, SPO1 Elmer Amposta (SPO1 Amposta) because
there was no showing that he had been impelled by any ill motive to falsely testify against Sanchez.
Issue: Whether the arrest of Sanchez is wrongly arrested or not.
Held: Preliminarily, the Court notes that this petition suffers from procedural infirmity. Under Section 1, Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, the proper remedy to question the CA judgment, final order or resolution, as in the
present case, is a petition for review on certiorari, which would be but a continuation of the appellate
process over the original case. By filing a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65, Sanchez therefore
clearly availed himself of the wrong remedy.
Be that as it may, the Court, in several cases before, had treated a petition for certiorari as a petition for
review under Rule 45, in accordance with the liberal spirit and in the interest of substantial justice,
particularly (1) if the petition was filed within the reglementary period for filing a petition for review; (2)
errors of judgment are averred; and (3) there is sufficient reason to justify the relaxation of the rules. The
case at bench satisfies all the above requisites and, hence, there is ample justification to treat this petition
for certiorari as a petition for review. Besides, it is axiomatic that the nature of an action is determined by
the allegations of the complaint or petition and the character of the relief sought. Here, stripped of
allegations of grave abuse of discretion, the petition actually avers errors of judgment rather than of
jurisdiction, which are the appropriate subjects of a petition for review on certiorari. Although it is true that
the trial courts evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect
and not to be disturbed on appeal, this rule, however, is not a hard and fast one. It is a time-honored rule
that the assessment of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses deserves the utmost respect,
if not finality, for the reason that the trial judge has the prerogative, denied to appellate judges, of observing
the demeanor of the declarants in the course of their testimonies. But an exception exists if there is a

showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some facts or circumstances of
weight and substance that would have affected the case. After going over the records of the case at bench,
the Court finds some facts of weight and substance that have been overlooked, misapprehended, or
misapplied by the trial court which cast doubt on the guilt of Sanchez. A judicious examination of the
evidence on record belies the findings and conclusions of the RTC and the CA.
At the outset, it is observed that the CA confused the search incidental to a lawful arrest with the stop-andfrisk principle, a well-recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Albeit it did not expressly state so,
the CA labored under the confused view that one and the other were indistinct and identical. That confused
view guided the CA to wrongly affirm the petitioner's conviction. The Court must clear this confusion and
correct the error. A search as an incident to a lawful arrest is sanctioned by the Rules of Court. It bears
emphasis that the law requires that the search be incidental to a lawful arrest. Therefore it is beyond cavil
that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his belongings; the process cannot be
reversed.
Here, the search preceded the arrest of Sanchez. There was no arrest prior to the conduct of the search.
Arrest is defined under Section 1, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court as the taking of a person into custody that
he may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. Under Section 2, of the same rule, an arrest
is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by his voluntary submission to the custody
of the person making the arrest.